Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Criticism of security leaks and of credit

There has been a recent wave of reports in the United States media of former service-members criticizing President Obama, and his Administration, of security leaks, and taking credit for the mission that lead to the death of Osama bin Laden. Also Jeanne Shaheen has said that President Obama lead the mission.

Should this content be here? If not here, then where?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article already has a "Leaks of the news" section though that's about leaking that UBL had been killed. That section seems to be fairly NPOV. If someone can find similar sources for how more details of the mission were leaked then it would work if they follow the model used in the existing "leaks" section.
This article is probably the right place to have a section about additional leaks but it may be hard to make NPOV. There have been many claims that "vice president Joe Biden leaked the details" or "administration officials leaked the details" but people making these claims are never specific. Last year I tried, without success, to find a news or magazine article where VP Biden or other officials made statements that disclosed mission details. Thus I've developed the impression that the leak claims were either an effort to discredit the administration or were mistaken claims.
FWIW, Mark Owen's "No Easy Day" states that that President Obama did not leak any detailsPage 275-276 and he never fingers anyone in the administration for how public the mission details became. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Added Background section

I just added a section entitled "Background", but perhaps it could be renamed and put elsewhere in the article. I think it would be helpful to provide information about how the presidential policies and politics were related to this event. It also is helpful to document the debate that ensued over how to deal with bin Laden. Maybe this should be entitled "Political background", or "Presidential Policy", and no doubt it can use some expansion and modification. My intent is for this to be NPOV. If you feel I have cherry-picked quotes and misrepresented anything, please jump in and make your own edits. If you think this section is unnecessary or not appropriate for some reason, please explain why and be willing to discuss it before removing it. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do think the section is POV. Its very pro-Bush, pro-McCain and pro-America. Its hard to use phrases like "bringing him to justice" in a text that is NPOV! Removing it is the best solution at this point in space and time, but maybe I can rewrite it later. Trio The Punch (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No local time seen

Something must have diappeared from the opening phrase: ..."was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, local time by..." Should the time read there? Paj (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

local time missing

Something must have disappeared from the opening phrase: ..."was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, local time by..." Should the time read there? Paj (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete Falsified Article

Content hidden due to "...not a forum for general discussion"
It's amazing how false info makes it onto Wikipedia helping to brainwash everyone into thinking it's fact. There is no proof of this entire article. What a hoax. The official story has more holes than swiss cheese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufan10304 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'mintheNavy (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. There is no actual proof that OBL was killed in this exercise at all. There are only references to news articles regurgitating government statements. There is more evidence in fact, that he died 2001. Of course, I do not what the truth is but I do expect Wikipedia to be impartial & present claims as mere claims, rather than proven facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.117.50 (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"There is no actual proof that OBL was killed in this exercise at all." YES! I agree, because I found a video showing Bin Laden having a cup of tea with its now 123yo comrade Adolf Hitler somewhere in Argentina ;-))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.78.253 (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
YES! I second that! Cus I found a short clip where Ole Adolf and Osama are DPin Ole BritQueen Victoria ;-)))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.43.251 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


Please could this article have a section on bin Laden's earlier death too?

Osama bin Laden also died in December 2001 from untreated lung complications of his illness, reference is here: Report: Bin Laden Already Dead Details of his funeral are given. This article has not been publicly refuted in the media. Ignoring this "reliable" source in the article severely impairs its credibility. Article should start by saying that there are (at least) two reported deaths, and then describe each one in chronological order. Then have a section mentioning possible interpretations - misidentification, fraud, political theater, multiple bin Ladens. 2.11.191.230 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 2.11.191.230: Please re-read the very first paragraph of that report. Fox News is reliable, but the Fox report makes clear that the story actually came from a report in Pakistan based on something that a member of the Taliban, of all people, made. So, ignoring this supposedly "reliable" source, as you put it, is not a credibility problem -- for either Wikipedia or for Fox. And articles, once published, don't have to be "refuted in the media." The news of each and every day is full of unsubstantiated reports, and those reports don't need to be "refuted." Famspear (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and at the risk of stating what should be obvious, the fake death report from December of 2001, which came from an unnamed "source" who was supposedly a member of the Taliban, was indeed refuted in the media -- in the form of numerous videos of Bin Laden generally accepted as having been made long after December of 2001. Famspear (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
See also other articles such as Location of Osama bin Laden. There is no need to re-summarize or re-list each and every unconfirmed report. Famspear (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of cites

In describing one of Bissonnette's assertions, six cites are given. Why? All the sources simply reported what Bissonnette said in his book - this does not need six cites.Parkwells (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Put "Alternative accounts" later in article

It does not seem that the books written about this, published well after Obama's speech, and all the other parts of "Aftermath," should come before the "Aftermath" section of the article. Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Diagrams of assault

I am looking for opinions on whether the diagrams of the assault from "No Easy Day" would be kosher to use in this article? Would they be considered acceptable or would they be "protected" works? If not, I think they would add a great visual aid of the different stages of the assault. jlcoving (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Death of Osama bin Laden

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Death of Osama bin Laden's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Army_Times_stealth_Black_Hawk":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Glrx (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories section

Isn't there a Wikipedia policy against citing conspiracy theories? Furthermore, none of the sources cited actually advocate said conspiracy theories. They are merely reporting that the theories exist. The distinction is important! To date, there haven't been any reliable sources that have given credit to any of the conspiracy theories. --Lacarids (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No physical evidence constituting actual proof of death of Osama also exist to date. The whole article is written as if the death of Osama is a fact, regardless lack of any evidence. These things make me wonder. A government can claim something and it is accepted widely as solid reality, without the least requirement for proof. Yet if someone else - any source - claims it isn't true until proven he becomes a "conspiracy theorist". There are lots of articles and guides on Wikipedia about unbiasedness, neutral point of view, sticking to proofs etc, and then we get this. I came here expecting Wikipedia's trademark neutrality where all views on this story were posted, but I found an article that takes government's words as the ultimate truth, and I even read comments like yours that no other tales than the government's should be allowed. Wikipedia is still very, very far from being encyclopedic until this behavior keeps appearing. Red Falconian (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories article?
Wikipedia is not about "truth" or "facts" but rather it documents what is reported in reliable sources. For example, we have no proof that Osama bin Laden ever existed. For all we know, he was a boogieman invented to keep the children in line. Reliable sources reported on him as though he existed and so we use a similar position on Wikipedia. Reliable sources also reported that he's now with the fish and so that's how it's reported on Wikipedia.
If you know of reliable sources for that UBL died in 2001, that he's still alive, etc. then you are welcome to update the article. I had thought both this article and the one on UBL, had a section on "rumors of death" as over the years he has been reported as dead, near dead, etc. I can't see that section now. Maybe I missed it. If it's been removed I don't have time at present to hunt it down and to see why. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Marc, hi, I just happened to stumble across this page while looking for something else and I find the uncertainty about the time of death of OBL interesting. When you mention if there are reliable sources for that OBL died in 2001, yes, I recall having noted down several such cources on an earlier occasion. This is what I have:
Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd, December 26, 2001, carried a piece entitled "News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral 10 Days Ago".
The Observer (Pakistani periodical), December 25, 2001, carried a piece with similar contents.
Fox News, December 26, 2001, ran a report called "Bin Laden Already Dead".
CNN, January 19, 2002, interview with Pervez Musharraf, where Musharraf states "Bin Laden Likely Dead".
CBS News, July 17, 2002, ran a story entitled "FBI official Thinks Bin Laden Is Dead".
CNN, July 30, 2002, quoting Hamid Karzai: "Bin Laden Probably Dead".
World Tribune, October 16, 2002: "Israeli Intelligence: Bin Laden Is Dead, Heir Has Been Chosen".
arabicnews.com, October 26, 2002: ""Bin Laden Is Dead".
I am not sure how to enter these sources into this page as it stands now. I concur with the critical voices that this page is flawed in a basic way in that it does not even raise the issue that there are indeed several reliable sources placing the time of death of OBL around december 2001. I think this entire page should be rewritten to reflect the fact that reliable sources refer to two very different times of death. I am not sure how to rewrite this page in a way acceptable to all ye good folks here, but I think we should discuss this. If this is not the proper place to discuss this, I trust that someone will direct me to where this discussion should be conducted. If this little thought of mine is entered in a wrong place, I apologize to ye good people. 207.126.92.2 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Your information would go under the section "Previous attempts to capture or kill bin Laden" if relevant. The sources that say "likely" or "probably" are not really relevant, IMO. The articles about him dying in December 2001 are related to the Tora Bora bombing. Which later we had proof he survived by the videos he made. --MarsRover (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
^ Lmao at "videos he made." You mean the ones that the US government falsified by adding their own subtitles to which were actually videos from years prior? Yeah, that's all that were released. The government came out and admitted they doctored those. So no, that's not proof of anything, especially not proof of survival. Wufan10304 (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you have references showing them admitting they doctored the videos? SilverserenC 05:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Why would anyone admit this? Bit silly, aint it? However, there is enough doubt about them. Osama really must have had only one set of clothes to wear. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21530470/ns/nbcnightlynews/t/was-bin-ladens-last-video-faked/ 77.22.82.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting.. you either found proof that the tapes are indeed doctored for no apparent reason or that Bin Laden needed to shop for some more clothes because going on the run what heck on his wardrobe selection. I suggest Occam's razor on that one. --MarsRover (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did al-Qaeda confirm UBL was killed (in Pakistan) after the raid on the compound? He had family living with him, why would his family not dispute when/where/or/if he died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.42.117 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I find the whole thing quite strange, and the lack of any credible pictures of OBL another thing to be suspicious about too, they (the US Government) would have been showing him off like a prized hunting trophy, instead we simply have to take their word that he was buried at sea. Very convenient that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.16.18 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll recopy what I wrote down below, but generally the discussion in that section of the article requires an awful lot of conspiring and is therefore, by definition, a conspiracy theory. And I think the OBL conspiracy theories are notable... 9/11 has an entire article about the ones surrounding that event, so I don't object to a paragraph or two here... Anyway, my previous opinion on the matter: There is a preponderance of evidence, including eye-witness reports from Navy SEALs, a Pakistani officials word, the US President's word, an Al Qaeda statement sent to and reported by Al Jazeera and subsequent statements from Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri, substantial evidence that US helicopters were there that night (including one that was lost and partially destroyed), and the fact that he hasn't been seen or heard from since that Osama was killed that night. So while there is no body or released photographs, there is a lot of evidence that this occurred and none that it didn't. I think it's fair to characterize the belief that Osama Bin Laden didn't die in this raid as a conspiracy theory, considering it would require a conspiracy between the POTUS, Pakistan, a hundred US Navy and CIA personnel, and the remaining family eyewitnesses, as well as some way to manufacture and place the destroyed American helicopter and produce the commotion that the software developer who live-tweeted the events that night heard. --Sam (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading description in the Conspiracy theories section

From the Conspiracy theories section : "The reports of bin Laden's death on May 1, 2011, are not universally accepted[153] despite unreleased DNA testing confirming his identity,[34][112] Bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter witnessing his death,[91][154] and a May 6, 2011, al-Qaeda statement confirming his death.[7"

Bin Laden Daughter account is described here as fact. there is no evidence for that, in the reference only there is what "a Pakistani official has stated".

some "Al-Qaeda statement" in a blog is fact ? could we use that blog entry as a RS here in Wikipedia too? really ?.

The description for the DNA testing is a fair description, since it mentions it was never released.

So basically all three are hearsay - and should all reflect that equally.109.64.7.150 (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In general this whole article should begin with "According to the US government.." .This is an encyclopedia not a government channel. A comment in the "Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories" Wikipedia article talk page sums it up pretty clearly :

"I love that there is no evidence at all on the death of Osama. No legit photos, no body. They claim they have his DNA but that hardly proves anything. Yet, this is a "conspiracy theory". Since when not believing a completely unproven claim is a "conspiracy theory", and a claim with no evidence to back it up is deemed as a fact - even by wikipedia?"

I feel this article ,as it stands now, does a great disservice to Wikipedia's Image and credibility, and in a ridiculous blatant way.109.64.7.150 (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a preponderance of evidence, including eye-witness reports from Navy SEALs, a Pakistani officials word, the US President's word, an Al Qaeda statement sent to and reported by Al Jazeera and subsequent statements from Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri, substantial evidence that US helicopters were there that night (including one that was lost and partially destroyed), and the fact that he hasn't been seen or heard from since. So while there is no body or released photographs, there is a lot of evidence that this occurred and none that it didn't. Feel free to strengthen the citations if you'd like, but I think it's fair to characterize the belief that Osama Bin Laden didn't die in this raid as a conspiracy theory, considering it would require a conspiracy between the POTUS, Pakistan, a hundred US Navy and CIA personnel, and the remaining family eyewitnesses, as well as some way to manufacture and place the destroyed helicopter and produce the commotion that the software developer who live-tweeted the commotion that night heard. --Sam (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the War in North-West Pakistan?

Osama bin Laden's infobox states that Operation Neptune Spear was a part of the War in North-West Pakistan, however, the War in North-West Pakistan article mentions very little about it. Is the Operation Neptune Spear considered a part of the War in North-West Pakistan? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

DEVGRU Red Team members

DEVGRU Red Team members are becoming notable in real life as well as in portrayals in fiction. Here is an example.

  • "Navy SEAL who killed bin Laden left in poverty with no pension, healthcare or protection". RT. 11 February, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • PHIL BRONSTEIN (February 11, 2013). "The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed". Esquire.

There should be some article for material like this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute...

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how many times Osama bin Laden has been pronounced dead? They thought he was dead in 2001! In 2010! Why are we being so quick to think that he's dead? I personally believe that he is still the greatest hide and-seek player ever. --Derp (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.135.196 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

More details on Islamic Funeral Rites of UBL, anyone?

Most if not all sources describing Osama bin Laden's burial at sea mention that the burial was carried out according to Islamic funeral rites. I'm a Muslim and the fact or statement that Osama was buried according to Islamic rites really bothers me a lot from the very first day I heard about it and have been trying to look for answers eversince. It doesn't make any sense!

Any Muslim knows that Islamic religious funeral rites (apart from cultural traditions which is different for every culture) the funeral rites are the same for every Muslim anywhere and this includes bathing the deceased, completely covering/wrapping the body with white cloth and the funeral prayer (Islamic funeral). The funeral prayer includes movements and utterances of certain blessings for the deceased in the hereafter such as "...O God, forgive him and have mercy on him, keep him safe and sound and forgive him, honour his rest and ease his entrance; wash him with water and snow and hail, and cleanse him of sin as a white garment is cleansed of dirt. O God, give him a home better than his home and a family better than his family. O God, admit him to Paradise and protect him from the torment of the grave and the torment of Hell-fire; make his grave spacious and fill it with light.". (Salatul_janazah) I just can't imagine that the US government would pray (or have someone pray) for Osama before his burial with these kind of words just to carry out Islamic funeral rites for him. Did the US really carry this out for Osama?? Was the US government actually really concerned about the proper burial for every dead terrorist that they would even give proper burial to the biggest terrorist of all time and their biggest enemy? If the US government had admitted, "We didn't give Osama any proper burial", this would make sense. But instead they said that they gave him a burial according to Islamic rites, so I can't help but ask, "Did they also pray for God to have mercy on Osama?"

This is a question that I've been wondering all this time. I think this is a very important question that needs to be answered. And I'm sure Americans would like to know about this too. So does anyone know the answer to this? Did the US government have someone pray for Osama before his body was buried in the sea? Senantiasa (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

All of what you said above is speculation and has no real place on Wikipdia unless you can find a source. Also I'm not really sure that Wikipedia is the place for this discussion. That said, I have little doubt there are chaplans on every carrier that are trained in Islamic funeral rites, if not an Islamic chaplan as many Muslims serve in the U.S. military, and that person was *extremly* careful when performing those rites. "Was the US government actually really concerned about the proper burial for every dead terrorist?" probably not, as a rule they probably allow any captured bodies to be taken by next of kin. They were concerned for Osama bin Laden, because they were unwilling to give the body to anyone, the geopolitical implications of not giving it a proper funeral are staggering. CombatWombat42 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of number of troops at the compound and number of helicopters

It appears, by my reading of the article, that there were 79 troops and 1 dog but only two blackhawks at the compound, this makes for 40 soldiers in one blackhawk, which is probably impossible. Other parts of the Execution of the operation section say two dozen SEALS. Is anyone else confused? Can someone clarify? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2 Blackhawks carried the main team for the raid. There was a Chinook helicopter with troops held in reserve just over the the border. Dkspartan1 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No sailors witnessed the funeral?

Hi, I found this article, which seems to be important. Reviewing the article quickly I found no mention of the facts reported there. However, the publishing date is Nov 2012, so I guess it had not passed unnoticed. Shall we use it? --Emesik (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

An article about Americans killing someone with bad English grammar...hmm..

"were", not "was".

"None of the SEALs, crew and pilots on the helicopter was seriously injured in the soft crash landing,"

English subjunctive.... 68.38.197.76 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) ...*were* seriously injured...

Done

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


typo....

"A The New York Times/CBS poll taken after bin Laden's death showed" 68.38.197.76 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done
That's technically correct, because the paper is called "The New York Times". It looks wrong, but isn't. However, to make it easier to read I've changed it to "A CBS/The New York Times poll..." Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks wrong because it is wrong. See the paper itself, for example its subscriptions page - "Become a New York Times digital subscriber" or contact page - "contact a New York Times reporter". Similarly, people say "a Bronx resident", not "a The Bronx resident", and no fan of The Cure would ever describe themselves as "a The Cure fan". The reversed version you went with is not as jarringly wrong but still wrong. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope, it's technically correct. That the term "The" appears in the title makes for awkward English which most people avoid by dropping it altogether, but that does not change the fact "The New York Times" is the correct term. As well as the contact and subscriber page, you could always look at the actual paper itself to see what it's called? As it happens, I do like The Cure - also The Mission, and The Cult, and I agree I would never call myself a The Cure/Mission/Cult fan, but as that's the name of the band, I should. However, I also like a bit of The the - but I wouldn't call myself a The fan...
If reverting my edits is so important to you, please go ahead and remove the "The" from the sentence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it is wrong, always, inescapably. The newspaper itself does not follow your invented rules, which should have been a clue for you, but apparently not. If you can't understand that "A The" is an incorrect formulation, it's no wonder you don't understand when using "sic" is appropriate.
Reverting your edits is not in the slightest bit important to me. Being correct is. But if feeling persecuted is so important to you, then go ahead and feel that way, just as much as you like. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your apparent obsession with me my edits all of a sudden. I should be flattered, I suppose. You are wrong. I am technically correct. The important consideration here is that I understand the term "technically correct" and you don't. I'll explain: It means that the term "A The New York Times" is correct, but to actually use it would not be, so an alternative should be sought. And that's what I did. Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Being corrected when you are absurdly wrong makes you feel like the centre of attention, does it? 201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope, but it does you. I can only assume that now you've been ousted from 2MASS and Erich von Däniken that you are looking for somewhere else to vent your spleen - I wonder at the fine line you draw between being outraged enough to comment on my edit in talkspace, but apparently not enough to actually do anything about it in the article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"sic"

In "We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida [sic]", the presence of "sic" is far more confusing that its absence would be. I removed it because it made me think there was a mistake in the sentence, which I hunted hard for and couldn't find. Then I realised that it referred to "Al Qaida", which is a widely used alternative transliteration and not a mistake. The editor who put the "sic" back said ""Qaida" is not the commonly known term", but it's the default spelling in many widely read publications, such as The Guardian. Google search counts suggest that the rate of use of Qaida:Qaeda is about 1:3 so it's hardly likely to be perceived as a mistake by the reader. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that it's a mistake, only that it's a variation of a spelling - and although perhaps a common variation, it is not the most common usage of the term, ergo the {{sic}} is appropriate. Also given that the ratio of "Qaeda" vs "Qaida" in this specific article is 50:3 if you include references, or 50:1 if not - the only reference to "Qaida" is in this single statement, it is correct to include the {{sic}} to show that in this instance "Qaida" is intentionally different to every other spelling in the article. Finally, as per wp:brd guidelines, please leave the original version in place until a consensus has been reached. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
If you omit the "sic", no-one will take a second glance at this quote. If you put it in, you call attention to a trivial variation in spelling that does not need attention calling to it. You clearly wouldn't put a "sic" in the titles of the two references where that spelling is used, so why bother here?
You seem to be under the impression that WP:BRD requires me to leave your wrong edit in place for as long as you feel like arguing about it. It doesn't. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be a better idea to put a hidden comment there to discourage people from trying to "correct" it. I agree that it's unnecessary to place a "sic" as it will give the impression that it's misspelled. ... discospinster talk 01:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Or another possibility is just put your preferred spelling variant there. It has no impact at all on the substance of the quote so does not need to be reproduced exactly. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, as consensus is against me, I'll agree that the {{sic}} should be removed. However, I'll also mention that the IP address is incorrect in their above comments to "just put your preferred spelling variant there" - which trivial or not, is not the point of a quote. If you quote something, you do it exactly - as per "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced", and also that "You seem to be under the impression that WP:BRD requires me to leave your wrong edit in place for as long as you feel like arguing about it. It doesn't." No, it only requires (and in fact, it's not a requirement, but merely a consideration so that you don't appear an arrogant editor,) that you leave the original edit in place until a consensus has been arrived at - as it has. Chaheel Riens (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE:
"A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud"
201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting - we're both quoting the bits from MOSQuote that suit our own arguments. I guess if you look hard enough you'll always be able to find something to support a particular point of view. I suppose if I sit and think hard enough I could use the above argument to support my previous insistence on {{sic}} beign inserted - something along the lines of using it to prevent any changes being made to read "Qaeda" under the consistency guidelines. Something like that, but it's Saturday night, and I really can't be bothered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

I propose promptly deleting all (3) of the biased 'despite's...

In that section, readers ought to learn about the theories; NOT editors' skepticism. Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

How are they biased? "Despite" (which I tend to dislike too) doesn't invalidate referenced material. Neutrality includes refutations of fringe theories when they have been widely debunked or when what amounts to an Internet rumor has been refuted in reliable sources. As I noted, rewording is the usual way to deal with the issue. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems this article is sardonically siding with the opponents. Citations don't redeem that.
' Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations ' [[1]]
This article is already full of references to more accepted ideas, and the last one: 'despite unreleased DNA testing confirming his identity,' shouldn't be admissible. Beingsshepherd (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
While I think it could be better-phrased, you appear to be trying to leave a conspiracy theory standing on its own through an omission of cited material that refutes it. Wikipedia does not present fringe material on the same basis as mainstream media accounts. Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It would still have a 'Conspiracy theories' heading. We haven't an obligation to demean them.
Let's just say: here are the widely accepted reports, here are the (unequivocal) *fringe theories*; then let readers decide for themselves.
Ideally, I'd like to add (with citation): Despite the U.S. administration releasing graphic photographs of the Hussein brothers' bodies...
But I assume, that wouldn't be permissible. Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Well, since none have been released, we have to work with what's available. Would you like to propose the specific language here? I have no objection in principle to your general concept, but would like to see something more concrete. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the former, I'm still calling for just a simple deletion. Have I really found sympathy for the latter!? If so, yes, I'd settle for that as a delightful compromise. Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

President was not present in situation room for Bin Laden's death per Reggie Love

This version of the event was not what Reggie Love said occurred. Reggie said he was playing cards with the President per interview posted on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B32sYF91KyM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrey1952 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

can we have a hyperlink to Hafeez Saeed.

Hafeez Saeed is india's most wanted terrorist! We do have a separate article on Hafeez Saeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.40.10 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Alandeus (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Death in 2001?

Has this article been discussed? Why did Fox News report his death back in December 2001? And if this is inaccurate, it seems odd that the article is still online. This would seem to be great fodder for conspiracy theories, but I don't see many people discussing it or its inclusion on the bin Laden death conspiracy page. --Louisstar (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

NSA Propaganda

Can we remove the NSA propaganda? it's a side note at best, and serves no other purpose than evangelizing the NSA and it's widely criticized spying programs.

In 24 hours I'm removing it if no one has commented. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the NSA in the article, much less the "NSA propaganda." Please be specific. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Using the Find tool, I see two mentions of the NSA in the same paragraph, neither of which I would consider POV or undue, much less "propaganda". It all seems relevant and appropriate. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge?

Could Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden and/or Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories be merged into this article? If not, why? Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 23:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The merging would make the article too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.157.91 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

CIA Officer?

I'm not seeing anything about the CIA Officer who is mentioned in Zero Dark Thirty and Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden. It seems as though there should be some reporting on her. Am I just missing it? 108.203.209.234 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably because Zero Dark Thirty and Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden are fiction or partial fiction. Alandeus (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Assassination

The article, written no doubt by Americans, refers only to bin Laden being killed. This attack bore all the hallmarks of an assassination. Whether or not it was an assassination, there was a lot of debate about that. This should be referred to in the article. The vague reference to "legality" only quotes Administration figures who are supporting the legality of assassination. There is no reference to the majority of academic and jurist opinion that an assassination was illegal. Furthermore the section implies that it is accepted that this was an assassination, yet the official line is that it was not - it was a "shot while trying to escape' scenario.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Two edits

I have made two edits to the article. His name is spelled "bin Laden" in the main text of the article, but occasionally appeared as "Bin Laden". I have altered "Bin Laden" to "bin Laden" in those cases. The table of contents did not include the sub-sub-paragraphs which appear in the text, so I amended the wikitext and they now appear properly numbered in the table. --P123cat1 (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Condemnations in the Lead Section

The inclusion of the opinions of Hamas and Fidel Castro strike me as slightly unusual in the lead section; both of these two sources are associated as 'enemies' of the U.S. - perhaps the inclusion of condemnation from public intellectuals like Tariq Ali or Noam Chomsky would better represent the critical reaction in the West. This would also be useful in the 'Reaction' sub-section. KingHiggins (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

But isn't it important to have the global reaction, not just a western opinion? By all means, substitute one or both, if you feel it better displays the global reaction. Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 20:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment and improvements needed

I was very surprised to read that this article has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles, because I would say the article is not neutral (as it is today). Therefore I tried to initiate a community reassessment, but that did not seem to work. It should be made more clear that many see these executions as a breach of international law and human rights. For example, see an interview with Ove Bring, professor emeritus in international law (in Swedish)). Remember that also family members were shot. The right to a trial is not just the right of a suspect. It is also important for public and press scrutiny. An what about legality under Pakistan law? See also the comments made by others above regarding 'Condemnations in the Lead Section' and 'Assassination'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.232.58 (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It sounds like personal opinion. You think it breaches some laws, but the Hague took no action (and Ove said that it may breach laws, not "it breaches laws"), so it is probably POV and/or fringe to add. Meanwhile, there is a month-long stale. Close file.Forbidden User (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Details from Peter Bergen need updating

The article cites Peter Bergen and includes Bergen's 2012 book as further reading:

Bergen has written an initial assessment of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, reporting on details that affect his book:

I would content that this article's good status depends upon an update based on such revelations. 72.244.200.129 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not technically a military operation?

Assuming that the statement that "For legal reasons (namely that the U.S. was not at war with Pakistan), the military personnel assigned to the mission were temporarily transferred to the control of the civilian Central Intelligence Agency" is correct, this was not a military operation at all, but a CIA one. However I doubt the claims, for an invasion by armed CIA operatives is as much an invasion as an invasion by naval and air force personnel. There is no legal difference. This was an act of war against Pakistan whichever way one looks at it. If several dozen armed Mexican intelligence agents - who the day before and the day after were soldiers - flew into Virginia or Washington DC, attacked a building complex, killing most of the occupants, men women and children, and kidnapping the survivors, what would the USA have said? And of course there was the minor detail that large elements of the Mexican army would be standing by to attack American forces if they tried to intervene. Would the USA regard that as an illegal invasion and an act of war, or an intelligence operation that could go ahead - despite being completely illegal? Of course if the CIA can turn torture into something else merely by calling it enhanced interrogation techniques, I suppose an invasion can magically become something else if relabeled. I realize that this is not a discussion page, but my point is that this article is written from such a strong American POV that it does not have any balance and has become something closer to propaganda.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Usage of human shields

In the killing section it says "O'Neill states that bin Laden was standing behind a woman with his hands on her shoulders, pushing her forward. O'Neill immediately shot bin Laden twice in the forehead, then once more as bin Laden crumpled to the floor." However, The Guardian reports that initial claims of a woman being used by bin Laden as shields were, in fact, false. "standing behind a woman with his hands on her shoulders, pushing her forward" certainly gives this impression. Should there be a correction of this in the section? 77.165.250.227 (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole article has to be rewritten. It is based on official reports leaked or delivered to the press over time, which Hersh now says were invented, concocted and manipulated for a variety of reasons. Hersh even denies there was a courier: all of that, even the name assigned to him, was invented. He may be wrong, but the effect is that everything reports as fact here is a claim.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hersh report

An individual keeps reverting my attempt to make a subsection on the recent Hersh article. I see mention of the Hersh article in the intro. In my opinion, it doesn't need to be mentioned in the intro since it is a minority report. A small section in the body is sufficient. Also, why is my addition getting reverted since the body needs to support any info placed in the lede? Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A couple of paragraphs, with the main claims of the report, is more appropriate in it's own subsection. Wayne (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
NBC news has now confirmed Hersh's report that the US learned Bin Laden's location through an ISI walk-in during August 2010 with independent US intelligence sources, and the Intercept reports that Hillhouse's earlier contention, to the same effect, may have derived from yet another source. It seems relatively straightforward that the walk-in really did happen, meaning that the ISI did in fact know of Bin Laden's location in Abbottabad (as had been long suspected). Whether or not the ISI and Pakistani military knew of the US raid in advance, however, has not be corroborated, beyond the story given by Hersh's US and Pakistani sources.
Given this, Hersh's report certainly merits at least a brief mention in the lead. The walk-in corroboration also merits a mention in the "finding Bin Laden" section, which I've added, with attribution.
Lastly, I've noted that much of the article is written without attribution, which is surprising, since it has achieved good article status. If information comes from U.S. officials that needs to be stated, since they are actors in the Death of Osama bin Laden, not impartial commenters. -Darouet (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Aspects of article now also confirmed by AFP and the NYT, and more details have come from the Pakistani press. -Darouet (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the publication date actually be in the future (21 May 2015)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8601:3A00:0:0:0:0 (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence

How is Obama involved in the death of Osama bin Laden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.62.108 (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistence

A French official praised American persistence. This should be in the article somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.147.192 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarkozy praised the tenacity of the United States.

A wife?

Amal Ahmed Abdul Fatah a woman? Ahmed a wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.5.186 (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 8 2015

Within the "Allegations against Pakistan"-section, the same source (www.indianexpress.com/news/did-pakistan-army-shelter-osama/784511/0) is cited twice for the same claim (The "Critics cited the proximity of bin Laden's heavily fortified compound to the Pakistan Military Academy, that the U.S. chose to not notify Pakistani authorities before the operation, and the double standards of Pakistan regarding the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.23.43.88 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead Seymour Hersh

What Seymour Hersh thinks shouldn't really be in the lead, with an 8-line paragraph, should it? I'm not even certain it warrants a section anywhere on the page.Oxr033 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You clearly haven't followed this story: crucial aspects of Hersh's report have been confirmed by AFP, NYT and Pakistani news. Also, even if they hadn't, Hersh's reporting and the LRB venue would be enough to justify some kind of coverage. -Darouet (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed is a strong word; has a NYT reporter said her sources told her the same thing? Yes. That's not quite confirmation. Hersh's reporting deserves mentioning, but not in the lead. What is for now a conspiracy theory doesn't belong in the lead.--danielfolsom 07:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed is the correct word: Agence France-Presse, NBC and The New York Times Magazine all reported that sources also informed them the United States did learn of Bin Laden's location through a walk-in by a defector from Pakistani intelligence. If you read Carlotta Gall's piece, or this from The Intercept, you see that many have been working on the story for some time. AFP was told be two former senior Pakistani military officials that a defector did indeed help the U.S. in its hunt for Bin Laden, but didn't know "his target was bin Laden," which seems highly implausible given the bounty. And three sources speaking to NBC News said that the Pakistanis did know Bin Laden was in Abbottabad, and that the defector "provided vital information in the hunt for bin Laden" but didn't reveal his compound's location.
The walk-in is one of the only aspects of the story that has been really "confirmed," all other aspects coming from largely worthless official sources that have repeatedly either contradicted one another, or been disputed and been contradicted by sources off the record. You call Bin Laden's discovery by walk-in a "conspiracy theory;" it's about as much a conspiracy theory as the My Lai Massacre at this point, and Trevor Timm's analysis at the Columbia Journalism Review is the most appropriate response to that allegation. -Darouet (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no place for bizarre conspiracy theories from 78 year old reporters. No official sources are confirming anything like Hersh's story, and meanwhile there's a vast quantity of practical evidence that the Abbottabad raid actually occurred. There is exactly one guy, Darouet, who thinks this tinfoil hat theory belongs on Wikipedia. It does not. Lose Hersh from the lead-in instantly, please. --2605:E000:1600:410A:D72:B008:A0D8:382B (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That's right: we should pretend that multiple intelligence officials haven't confirmed that Bin Laden, in his compound adjacent to Pakistani intelligence headquarters, was effectively under house arrest, because of some crazy IP "tin foil hat" conspiracist. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. That doesn't mean we should write encyclopedias according to your idiotic views. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of confirmed

Confirmed does not mean subsequently reported on. Confirmed does not mean having sources saying similar things. I'm checking the links to see if one actually confirms, as I go I'll be removing sources from the article and explaining why here.--danielfolsom 07:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

New York Times

The New York Times has not confirmed Hersh's account - here is the article linked to as a reference - NYTM. Note that this is not even a newspaper article, but rather a New York Times Magazine piece. It's effectively an op-ed by a fellow journalist who is saying her sources said similar things to Hersh's.--danielfolsom 07:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times Magazine is known for long-format journalism, and Carlotta Gall, an journalist and expert in this area, notes that she first heard aspects of the story after the raid occurred four years ago, and in 2013 received information from a Pakistani source that the ISI had been holding Bin Laden in Abbottabad. She writes, "I was confident the information was true, but I held off publishing it. It was going to be extremely difficult to corroborate in the United States…"
Gall continues that Hersh had simply "[followed] up on a story that many of us assembled parts of." She notes that active CIA officers told a retired friend of the defector within days of the raid. Gall writes of Hersh's piece that "this development is hugely important."
Lastly, with regards to the word "confirm," Gall writes that she "cannot confirm Hersh’s bolder claims," but "would not necessarily dismiss the claims immediately." -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a huge discrepancy between what's essentially a gonzo op-ed that admits the author "can't confirm" the claims while suggesting she had sources that backed up other parts of the claims ... and the New York Times confirming a story.--danielfolsom 05:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
"Gonzo" is way off considering who wrote the piece and where. How about this: Carlotta Gall's piece in the New York Times Magazine is one of a series of sources that has confirmed aspects (some of them the critical) of Hersh's story. -Darouet (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

NBC

The NBC story has been update - here's the link to the article that is referenced - note the first paragraph, which I'll include here:

Editor's Note: This story has been updated since it was first published. The original version of this story said that a Pakistani asset told the U.S. where bin Laden was hiding. Sources say that while the asset provided information vital to the hunt for bin Laden, he was not the source of his whereabouts.

See again we're running into language and what the story is. Even if this note had not been attached, the story was merely that sources had conveyed to NBC that a walk-in had been critically important; that's still not necessarily confirmation: we need to be careful about that kind of language. But - with the update attached - Hersh's story is not at all validated: if the asset was not the source of bin Laden's whereabouts, then the asset either isn't the one Hersh spoke of, or Hersh's story is flawed. I've tried to update the article to reflect these realities---danielfolsom 07:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The NBC story is somewhat ambiguous about what the defector actually provided. In the article body, the authors write that according to their sources, "while the Pakistani intelligence asset provided vital information in the hunt for bin Laden, he did not provide the location of the al Qaeda leader's Abottabad, Pakistan compound." They also write that "Three sources... said that some officials in the Pakistani government knew where bin Laden was hiding all along." -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Even given that - which is now ambiguous from that update - that's not NBC confirming.---danielfolsom 05:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of FTN discussion

As a courtesy notification, I just came across this article and raised the Hersh issue here. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The text in question:
In May 2015, Seymour Hersh claimed that the official U.S. government's account of the bin Laden killing had been a lie, and that bin Laden had in fact been captured in 2006 by the Pakistani ISI, who were keeping him under house arrest, and later secretly helped the U.S. to arrange his killing.[1]

References

  1. ^ Hersh, Seymour M. (2015-05-21). "The Killing of Osama bin Laden". London Review of Books. pp. 3–12. ISSN 0260-9592. Retrieved 2015-11-06.
I am not sure if this is notable conspiracy bollocks, but no way does it belong in the lede and there's no reason to include it without proper analytical coverage. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Undue in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Doug Laux on Hersh's article

Doug Laux, a former CIA case officer who served in Afghanistan, Syria, and much of the rest of the Middle East has recently answered a number of pertinent questions about his service (and revealed plenty of trivia about his personal life) on Reddit. When asked about Seymour Hersh's widely-discredited propaganda article on bin Laden's death, Laux replied: "I think it was garbage and Peter Bergen absolutely destroyed him." This is, of course, just one minor detail among the vast array of problems with Hersh's story that suggest it cannot possibly be correct, but I thought it was worth mentioning here. As George W. Bush put it: "Seymour Hersh is a liar."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That's rich, coming from Bush. -Darouet (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Training Mock-Up

The article mentions the training mock-up at Camp Alpha (Bagram Airbase), but there is no mention of the mock-up at the Harvey Point Defense Testing (CIA training facility): http://binged.it/1OhcWs8 Jbottero (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

In "Approach and Entry" section "GPVNG-18" should be "GPNVG-18"...NVG short for Night Vision Goggles.

[1]

Thanks

65.95.199.36 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for providing a reference - Arjayay (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://tnvc.com/shop/l-3-gpnvg-18/

Assassination

The killing of bin Laden was without much doubt an assassination. Thousands of other people have been killed by the US military and CIA in the last decade, and the authorities are quite happen to admit to this. So why the reluctance to admit that bin Laden also was assassinated? There should at least be a reference to this in the article. The assumption that his death was unintentional is neither likely nor plausible.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Media quoting Ferencz position

  • The New York Times (letter by Ferencz) - [2] - "...was it really justifiable self-defense, or was it premeditated illegal assassination? The Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler’s worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail. Secret nonjudicial decisions based on political or military considerations undermine democracy. The public is entitled to know the complete truth."
  • The Week - [3] - "A former chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials said today that the "instant justice" meted out to Osama bin Laden a week ago was morally wrong and the United States should have done everything possible to bring him to trial... Ferencz joins a growing list of people questioning the manner of Osama bin Laden's death. The Archbishop of Canterbury said last week he felt "very uncomfortable" about it, while two senior United Nations officials have asked that the US explain the precise details of Bin Laden's killing in Abbottabad. As Ferencz wrote in a letter to the New York Times, 'The Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler's worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail. Secret non-judicial decisions based on political or military considerations undermine democracy.'"
  • BBC - [4] - " 'The issue here is whether what was done was an act of legitimate self-defence,' said Benjamin Ferencz, an international law specialist who served as a prosecutor during the Nuremburg trials and argued that it would have been better to capture Bin Laden and send him to court. 'Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law,' he told the BBC World Service." ... Like Mr Ferencz, British law professor Philippe Sands QC says it is impossible to make a definitive legal judgement without knowing precisely what happened. But he says the case for the raid's legality has been weakened. 'The question to ask is: were the measures taken in the actual situation that pertained reasonable and proportionate, given the circumstances in which the [Navy Seals] found themselves?' he told the BBC. 'The facts for Bin Laden don't appear to easily meet that standard... I think it's deeply troubling if we are indeed moving to a place where you can have a global assassination policy for those who are perceived to cause trouble,' he added. The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, have raised a similar concern."
  • The Guardian - [5] - "Benjamin Ferencz, an American lawyer who was a US prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials and who lives in New York state, asked whether the killing was justifiable self-defence or premeditated illegal assassination. He would have preferred for Bin Laden to have been captured and put on trial. Ferencz, 92, said: 'The picture I get is that a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed soldiers find an old guy in pyjamas and shoot him in the chest and head, and that borders, without access to more facts, on murder.' He added: 'Even [the head of the Luftwaffe Hermann] Göring had a right to trial.'"
(This interview is quoted in the 2014 Springer textbook, Presidential Policies on Terrorism: From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama)

Other sources

  • Al Jazeera - [6] - "Eric Holder, the US attorney general, defended the US operation against bin Laden as lawful. But some in Europe said bin Laden should have been captured and put on trial. 'It was quite clearly a violation of international law,' former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV. 'The operation could also have incalculable consequences in the Arab world in light of all the unrest.'"

-Darouet (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Obama informing Bush before his official statment

should this be added? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8512770/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-George-W-Bush-praises-Barack-Obamas-good-call.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alderaanrefugee (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ben Ferencz

@Glrx: I reverted your removal of Ferencz's comment for several reasons.

First, Ferencz was one of the major prosecutors of the Nuremberg Trials, successfully convicting leaders of the Einsatzgruppen who murdered millions of people in Eastern Europe. He was also a friend to Telford Taylor and Robert Jackson.

Second, Ferencz was one of the most important voices in the creation of the International Criminal Court, and has received the U.S. presidential Harvard Law School medal of freedom.

Third, Ferencz's position is radically different from what otherwise appears in the article concerning the legality of the killing, and the notion that the killing might have been illegal receives virtually no mention without Ferencz's position.

Fourth, Ferencz was quoted by the New York Times in the aftermath of the attack.

best -Darouet (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

e/c
Please observe WP:BRD.
An importnat issue is WP:DUE.
1. Ferencz may have been one of 12 major prosecutors in the 1946 trials, but that was years ago. The guy was born in 1920, so the comments are coming from a 91-year old, long-retired lawyer. I'm not seeing significant prominence to make his remarks essential. WP:DUE
2. The insertion only cites a single voice. DUE requires several voices.
3. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
4. Publishing a letter in the NYT does not carry editorial weight.
The insertion has other problems.
The statement is not concrete. It has a hypothetical about self-defense but does not come down on one side or the other. Ferencz military law view is also not nuanced. If a combatant has surrendered, then you don't shoot him. If he hasn't surrendered, he's fair game.
The edit was poorly placed: it preceded Holder's viewpoint rather than being a counterpoint; it also preceded the UN Security Council's viewpoint. The insertion does not mention the disagreement of professor of international law Ben Saul. That suggests the edit is PoV.
Glrx (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1. WP:NOTABILITY "is not temporary," and Ferencz, even now at 96 years of age, is still regularly quoted in the press. He was issued a presidential Harvard Law School metal of freedom 1.5 years ago [7].
2. The views of others including Holder and Law Professor Steven Ratner are mentioned here, and there's no reason to endlessly replicate them.
3. Ferencz's voice is notable, in one of the sources you can see he's joined by another expert, and his view was published by a number of very high quality reliable sources.
4. The NYTimes' decision to publish his letter, alongside his qualifications in international law and the fact that he's cited elsewhere on this issue, contributes to the notability of his position.
Ferencz doesn't need to say "it was illegal" when we don't know the exact circumstances of OBL's death. He states that if Bin Laden wasn't a combatant at the moment of his killing, then the killing was illegal, and that's a perfectly clear legal position to hold.
If you'd like to place the quote elsewhere, @Glrx: let me know. I'm fine with that. -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I never said that Ferencz is not notable. WP:DUE is something else.
The quotations you give below are speculative. Some premises are contradicted by statements in the article.
You need better sources if you want to imply that Obama, Clinton, Holder, Brennan, Panetta, McRaven or seals are guilty of murder.
Glrx (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to edit with an agenda, in this case, to remove legal opinions, by distinguished legal figures cited in high quality media, that the killing is illegal. -Darouet (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Glrx: I made a post at WP:NPOVN (and pinged you at the time). Every editor who commented - Stephan Schulz, Yahya Talatin and Scoobydunk agreed that Ferencz's position deserved to be restored, with Scoobydunk cautioning not to accord Ferencz undue weight. I've pinged them in case I'm misrepresenting their views. Given this response and none from you, I've restored the comment, sourcing to the BBC and Guardian.

I see that in past far more material including these kinds of views were included in the article: [8]. While I don't propose to restore all of them, I think Ferencz is particularly notable for the reasons articulated above, and is a good representative of these kinds of views. -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted because the above is forum shopping. Get consensus on this talk page.
The ex-prosecutor's view is very polar. The section presents a neutral view that some believe military and others believe civil enforcement. Ferencz's view is action may be criminal even if a military op. That view is UNDUE unless many others hold it. The paragraph is also poorer than the previous sentence that expresses a similar viewpoint: if ObL was outside of the fight, then killing him would violate the GC.
Glrx (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous: NPOVN is the first and only forum I've taken this to. I went there because you're the only person participating here on the talk page, and are unable to understand basic WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DUE policies. It looks like you have a problem with consensus too, which isn't surprising, given your prior comment promising to approach this subject as a POV warrior, and not an encyclopedian. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Glrx: did you even read the comments at NPOVN? -Darouet (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thia seems straightforward. The section word-wise is slightly in favour of the 'no problem' at all thesis (readers will dismiss the Pakistani statement in all probability. To object to registering what high level legal experts say simply because one imputes to editors a desire thereby to charge Obama, Clinton, Holder, Brennan, Panetta, McRaven with murder is absurd, indeed comical. I would also note that Glrx, observing that I, another editor, linked Darouet's restored text, refused to take this as what it was, an indication that a third editor agreed with Dsrouet, and dissented from his lone hold-out rejection of this material. Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Judicial watch

FOIA requests and acquisitions of government documents related to OBL's death are obviously relevant to this article. @Volunteer Marek: you know how WP:BRD works, and should have brought your concerns here before reverting my revert. If you personally consider Judicial Watch to be a conspiracy site that's alright, but you need to have reasons to declare so here.

Furthermore, it's unclear what your objection to this material is, particularly an image from McRaven's email obtained by FOIA. Are you suggesting it's a fabrication? That it's irrelevant? Explanation would be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

CNN article, and NBC News article. Highly unlikely that this is a "conspiracy theory," though I appreciate the colorful imagination involved in conceiving of that. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not that several groups tried to get info and photos released - the issue is that JudicialWatch (also RT) are not reliable sources. And yes, they do peddle conspiracy theories. They also refer to the SPLC as a "anti-Christian hate group" and accuse them (as well as several other mainstream organizations) of being "domestic terrorism" [9]. It's crap. Now, twice a day, even a stopped clock is right, but we still shouldn't use it.
If you want to include Judicial Watch in the list of "Numerous organizations (which) filed FOIA requests" I guess that's fine, though it's sort of legitimizing a fringe organization to put it along side with legit orgs like Reuters or AP. The paragraph starting with "Judicial Watch followed its FOIA request with a FOIA lawsuit on June 8, 2011..." needs secondary, reliable, sources, not JW itself + RT. Likewise, images are also subject to Wikipedia's RS policy and including an image from RS, possibly out of context or misrepresented, is a violation of WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.
I'm going to replace the sketchy sources with cn tags for now, so as to give folks a chance to find actual reliable sources, but I'm removing that image.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I did not mean to rollback your revert. The screen did that little "skip" when it loaded and I hit the rollback button by mistake. I tried to make a dummy edit with an edit summary explaining that but because it did not included any changes to the article itself, it's not showing up in page history (which is weird, cuz you used to be able to do that). So my apologies for hitting that rollback.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Clearly more needs to be written on the Judicial Watch page about their history and affiliations. In this case, whatever that history may be, the documents they've acquired are quite real. I'll work to improve this content here later this week. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

cant add a tag to the main article because it is locked unfortunately. The use of language is biased in the identification of the body section.

"U.S. forces used multiple methods to positively identify the body of Osama bin Laden" [citation needed] there is no publicly available information to verify this took place. instead it should read, "U.S. forces claimed to have used multiple methods to positively identify the body of Osama bin Laden" it also contradicts the later section, "Freedom of Information Act requests and denials" in which what i have stated is also said. although they use multiple references, all references rely on a single primary source, which is a statement made by a defence spokesperson. no evidence was provided and such statements certainly have propaganda value to incentivize deceit. the references as such should be regarded as dubious in this section.

one suggestion was based on a rather brief email https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/11/1102718_-alpha-body-bound-for-dover-de-on-cia-plane-.html another was statements made that suggested the corpse was severely mutilated and trophy photos with the mutilated corpse were taken by the navy SEALs. 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/oneill-osama-bin-laden-killing-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

there's also a report by a US senator claiming to have seen the photos but describing it vastly differently from the original defence department statement. the original defence statement said the skull had split open after being shot in the forehead, splitting the head open in a V-shape, going so far as to state that the skull had to be pressed together in order to ID the face. the Senator claims it went through the eyesocket with the brain hanging out of the eyesocket in the pictures he viewed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/12/bin-laden-dead-confirms-us-senator

the abbottabad report includes interviews with the family in which the witnesses state they were asked to visually identify the body in the dark, at 3AM at night. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/binladenfiles/2013/07/201378143927822246.html pg.36

furthermore, their statements regarding the night in question do not mention any accounts of mutilation but go into detail about the raid lasting 10 minutes, with the entire event lasting 30 minutes before they arrived and left, calling into question the suggestions of mutilation or severe disfigurement as stated reasons for not publishing identifying information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.67.211 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

would "According to U.S. officials, multiple methods were used to positively identify..." suit you? Later sections discuss the photos etc. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
on second reading, i think that the wording is in line with the way events are described in the rest of the article; providing the generally accepted version of events and then delving into contested details later on. This is consistent with WP:MNA.BananaCarrot152 (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Details

The Neptune Spear Section has many details that don't seem relevant to the article. For instance, does it matter that the night vision goggles cost "up to $38,000" (this claim also appears to be unsourced)? Or that Obama laughed at the joke "People think bin Laden is hiding in the Hindu Kush, but did you know that every day from 4 to 5 he hosts a show on C-SPAN?" during a public event on the night of the raid? or the brand of bullets used to kill bin Laden (source seems to be Pfarrer, whose account is widely disputed and contradicts much of what the article presents as fact).

This stuff doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Any thoughts? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Death of Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death of Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Death of Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing related to ISI walk-in

Updates to the NBC article cited in note 20 no longer seem to support the assertion of this page as fact that the ISI walk-in led to finding bin Laden's compound (e.g., "...after which the US began local and satellite surveillance...". There doesn't seem to be enough context explaining that this source's (Seymour Hersh) account has not been corroborated by any other news source.

Wsjankowski (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Objective of Operation Neptune Spear

The Reuters article in note 53 is misquoted - nowhere does the national security official or the article itself say "...making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan." This completely misrepresents the thrust of the Reuters article, which makes the point that the mission was viewed as a likely kill mission (due to bin Laden's resistance) rather than that the mission showed a lack of desire to capture bin Laden. The article makes very clear that "'If he had waved a white flag of surrender, he would have been taken alive,” the official added. But the operating assumption among the U.S. raiders was that bin Laden would put up a fight — which he did."

Wsjankowski (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Discrediting credible information

How can a reparable, well respected Wikipedia discount the validly of Bin Laden's earlier death??!! By burying opposing views, you have discredited your value as an unbiased publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:68A6:7230:FCED:F05E:C49E:6A11 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

Mark Owen wrote No Easy Day, not Matt Bissonette. 19grahami (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The book No Easy Day was written Matt Bissonnette under the pen name Mark Owen, So I see no good reason to change that. if you disagree, then this will probably need a WP:CONSENSUS here first. Once you gain consensus use the edit request template. DBigXrayᗙ 21:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

I would like to add the following verbiage and reference to the section "helicopter stealth technology revelations" at the end of the first paragraph:

The crash of the Blackhawk may have been, at least in part, caused by the aerodynamic deficiencies introduced to the airframe by the stealth technology add-ons.[1]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SITH (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rogoway, Tyler, "Origins of Stealth Black Hawks Date Back Over Three Decades Before the Bin Laden Raid", The Drive, 10 January 2019

21st Century not 20th Century

First sentence mentions that's his death was an event in the 20th Century rather than 21st Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.171.111 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the lead to the previous version, so this change is no longer necessary. Linguistical (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Unreasonable criticism

If a photo of Osama's dead body was published, there would be complaints about publishing it at all. Also, it might inspire alleged revenge from fellow Arabs. DNA evidence can't easily be understood by the public.

A photo has been published, but it seems to be fake.
He has shown no signs of being alive since 2011. A photo is hardly needed.
It is unreasonable, but it's nevertheless been made by notable people and groups. It belongs in the article. The evidence for OBL being dead is pretty much indisputable by now anyway. The real reason the photos won't be released is probably because it would lend weight to a fairly obvious theory: the SEALs killed an unarmed man (whom they had no intention of taking alive) and then at least one of them shot up his body for kicks. WP Ludicer (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unverifiable Source

Link #120 claims no country would take Bin Laden's body is unverifiable. The link no longer exists. Without proper verification the claim should be removed. WhowinsIwins (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the URL. ― Hebsen (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved as there is no consensus. Editors are divided on what title best aligns with our titling policy. The name most commonly used in reliable source is often the best candidate (WP:COMMONNAME), and many participants agree that "Killing", having grown in use since 2011, would be more recognizable and precise (among other reasons). Those in opposition raise concerns about consistency, neutral point of view, and precision. "Death of" article titles are a common style on Wikipedia, and some editors are concerned that readers may infer a particular point of view from the use of "Killing" instead of "Death". While some editors believe "Killing" is more precise given that we know the manner of death, others raise concerns that it is too precise and providing more information than is necessary to unambiguously identify the topic. Editors in support and opposition have reasonable policy based rationales, and they have largely failed to convince each other. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden –

This new title I am suggesting is more accurate, less ambiguous, and slightly more COMMONNAME. See:

This was last discussed in 2011, almost 9 years ago. Since then, the use of the prefix "Killing of ..." has become more common on Wikipedia. Admittedly, the prefix "Death of ..." is more common on Wikipedia but part of the problem is intransigence. We should move towards more accurate and more descriptive titles, especially as in this case when in common parlance this event is referred to as the "2011 killing of Osama bin Laden". Bin Laden did not just die. Someone killed him. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - "killing" in my mind refers to a very specific act, whereas the article is lengthy and contains many details both before and after his death. It seems to me that "death" is a more generic term and encompasses the entire scenario, rather than the actual point he became bereft of life. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Almost all Wikipedia articles about events have a background section and aftermath section dedicated to the period in time before and after the actual subject of the article. These sections are intended to give the reader context and are not part of the article proper. In these types of articles the middle large portion is the actual subject of the article and is identified by the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE which clearly describes the killing of this person named Osama bin Laden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The acts of war and the acts of murder are not the same. Murder involves taking someone's life (or killing) and violates the laws established by a country and is most likely illegal in every country. The act of war involves taking lives however in a much different concept. Wars occur between nations, between groups within a nation when it is a civil war or most recently against terrorist organizations who differ from countries in that they usually do not control territory (usually because ISIS for a while controlled swaths of territory.) Wars are not illegal in principal. Countries the world over understand that although war is not optimal is is how humanity has resolved major territorial and other disputes since the beginning of time. Wars involve taking lives where both parties have a mutual understanding that if you do not take their life then they will take yours. The taking of lives during wars is as much about protecting your own life and those of your fellow soldiers as it is about taking the other person's life. Murder is not about protecting anything (unless you are acting in self-defense in which case it is not murder.) The United States has been at war with radical terrorist organizations since 9/11. For the purpose of this conversation, the ethnicity of those terrorist organizations is irrelevant. But it is definitely a war just not in the same way they fought wars in the middle ages, where everyone lined up in nice rows on a battlefield and waited for the other side to be ready. In this war on terrorist organizations, there is a mutual understanding that the terrorists want to cause as much harm to Americans as they can and the United States will seek to destroy these terrorist organizations wherever they exist. The war is not in the same manner as say world war 1 or 2 where both sides were fighting continuously. In this new war, one side attacks and the next side responds days weeks or months later. Osama Bin Laden organized, promoted, and financed the events that led to thousands of American lives on September 11, 2001. It was an act of war in the same way that the Japanese bombed pearl harbor out of the blue on December 7, 1941. The difference is the Japanese did not run and hide in a cave playing hide and seek with the Americans. The United States declared war on AL Queda even though congress never passed a war resolution because Al Queda is not a country so no war resolution is necessary. Osama Bin Laden died in a war at the hands of United States Navy Seals who executed an operation in response to direct military orders from the most senior members of the United States Department of Defense. Osama Bin Landen died during an operation part of a larger war and thus the title should refrain from implying that this was any less than a military operation. Boston1775 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    There are many reasons for which you can kill a person legally. Self defense, pure accident, assisted suicide, act of war etc. None of these are murder. Yet, the constitute an act known killing a person. Unlike murder or manslaughter, the word has no connotation of guilt or innocence. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
In response to Coffeeandcrumbs and Dimadick. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Its purpose is to disseminate truthful and accurate information in an unambiguous way. The very nature of the list of types of killing reinforces that using the word "killing" in the title makes in ambiguous as to the legality of the event. On the list of killing, the words used to describe a death during wartime are "casualty" and "collateral damage". Since Osama Bin Laden was the target he was a casualty of war. The operation was was a"kill or capture" operation. The preferred outcome would have been for Osama Bin Laden to surrender so they may try to extract information from him. He resisted and they killed him. Using the word "killing" in the title makes it appear that was the primary goal. When an armed combatant dies during an act of war the correct title is "The Death of...." Boston1775 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
He resisted and they killed him. Your own words. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Killed in an act of war. Hence not "killed" in the title. See the original paragraph. The beauty of the United States of American is we are all free to have our own opinions and disagree. So let's agree to disagree; however, as per Wikipedia rules there must be a consensus for the title to be changed especially an article that has been around for a very long time. Boston1775 (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Loaded language. You say that the purpose of bringing this forward now is because Since then, the use of the prefix "Killing of ..." has become more common on Wikipedia. Is that really an accurate statement? Or is it because it was mentioned as a reason in this Talk:2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Requested_move_6_January_2020, in which you were a participant? If so, might I suggest that we let that discussion conclude before making changes here. If not, then please provide more evidence of this Wikipedia trend.Dig deeper talk 21:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    "Death of ..." is more loaded. It implies other reasons such as natural causes, disease, and accidental death. "Death of ..." is not NPOV. It is a WP:Euphemism. Toning down the language at the detriment of truth and facts. We should say what we mean and mean what we say. Calling this "Death of ..." implies that we believe this is justified. As hard as it is to grasp for us in the Western world, that is POV. Killing is not loaded. People are killed many reasons, some justified and not justified. The term makes no judgement on that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    To say that use of "Death of..." "implies that we believe this is justified" is nonsense: Death of Brian Deneke. There are other articles that use "Death of..." but that's the only one I've edited and know of. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. This is the issue I am having with this. It should be Killing of Brian Deneke. Voluntary manslaughter is a killing. But if I propose that people will say what about Death of Osama bin Laden. It is circular. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: has not yet answered my questions above. What evidence is there that article titles with "killing of..." has become more common on Wikipedia? Or is it because it was mentioned as a reason in this Talk:2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike#Requested_move_6_January_2020, in which you were a participant?Dig deeper talk 23:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    A comparison of "Killing of ..." articles mentioned at the 2011 discussion verses the number of articles with that prefix we have now. Note also that many of "Death of ... " articles linked in that discussion have moved to "Murder of ..." and "Suicide of ..." but for some reason we have resisted categorizing killings as "Killing" because of exactly this circular logic presented by the opposes above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I support this on grounds of precision, clarity, WP:EUPHEMISM etc. although I suspect even the nom knows it will be !voted down in WP:SNOW fashion. Boston1775's wall of text above appears to be an incoherent straw man argument against titling the page Murder of Osama bin Laden, which no one has suggested. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
That "wall of text" stated that it is inappropriate to refer to the "death" of Osama bin Laden using killing or murder. My second response acknowledged that no one suggested using the word "murder". Yet as an enemy combatant who died in the course of an ongoign war between the United States and terrorist organizations it is inappropriate to use the phrase "killing of....". That phrase is used outside of war. The original "wall of text" should have been more clear in explaining that it was my opinion that the word "killing" seems to imply "murder" or an "illegal" act without something like "the legal killing of..." Combatants who die in war should be described as such. Honestly the better title for the article would be to use the name of the operation "Operation Neptune Spear. (Death of Osama Bin Laden)" and then have all redirects be sent there. However, right now we are just dicussing using the phrase "killing of...." which I still stronly oppose. By the way to respond to c:User:Coffeeandcrumbs, if one uses Bing to conduct a search you get "2 090 000 Results for Death of Osama Bin Laden" and only "1 290 000 Results for killing of Osama Bin Laden" Almost double for Death which refutes the original claim. Boston1775 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes but the prosaic fact is that he was killed, it even says so in the article lede! Whether or not his killers were justified in killing him is an open question best addressed in the Legality section. We don't need to be squeamish. And I'm just concerned that if we follow your train of thinking too closely we might end up in the realms of the absurd: "Bin Laden's death occurred when firearms were discharged..." Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
That one made me smile. More like "Bin Laden's death occurred during Operation Neptune Spear during the War on Terror." With the next sentence being... "The Navy Seals of Seal Team 6 shot Bin Laden at point-blank range when he resisted being captured." That is how I would phrase it. Then I would continue to justify the entire operation. Anyway as I've stated in other posts, one of the great things about the United States of America is we get to have our own opinions and get to disagree. I don't think either of us will change the other's mind; however, I respect your opinion. Boston1775 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And I yours Boston1775 – thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: as some others, I visited the page after having participated in the discussion at Talk:2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike#Requested move 6 January_2020 and was surprised by the title. Bin Laden did not die in mysterious or unknown circumstances; insted, he was killed in a US military operation. In any case, there are plenty of sources using of "Killing of...". See for example:
  • Osama Bin Laden Killed : NPR | https://www.npr.org › series › osama-bin-laden-dead | Clinton is calling the killing of Osama bin Laden a "turning point" in U.S.-Pakistani relations, ...
  • Osama bin Laden | Biography, al-Qaeda, Terrorist Attacks ... |https://www.britannica.com › biography › Osama-bin-Laden|Jan 1, 2020 - Barack Obama announcing that U.S. forces had killed Osama bin Laden...
  • Bin Laden: Priority Number One - The Obama Years: An Oral ... | www.history.com › the-obama-years › bin-laden |Obama and members of his administration explain the dramatic story of the days ... House on Monday, May 1, 2011, to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden.
and so on. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:EUPHEMISM apply. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Let's take a look at the examples you offered up as "proof" that "killing" is more widely used. Before we dive into the specific example it is important to note that the links provided did not link to the relevant articles themselves but to the main page and the last example came with no link. Links to the actual articles are provided below.
NPR The article you listed Osama Bin Laden Killed written back on 16 August 2013, was quoting Hillary Clinton and therefore used the word killed. A year earlier in 2012, the same NPR ran the following story: Almost One Year After Bin Laden's Death, Pakistan Deports His Family.
Encyclopaedia Britannica The encyclopedia entry on Osama Bin Laden starts with the sentence "Osama bin Laden, also spelled Usāmah ibn Lādin, (born 1957, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia—died May 2, 2011..." The sentence you quoted with the word "killed" appears in the eleventh paragraph.
History Channel The report you mentioned "The Obama Years" is a nine-part report and part 5 discusses Osama Bin Laden. In the article, there is a caption for a picture that states: "Crowds outside the White House following the announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden". In the subtitle to the series, it states: "The dramatic story of the days leading up to the capture and killing of the man responsible for September 11, 2001." In that context, it was ok to use the word killing because it was made clear that the individual who was "killed" was also responsible for 9/11. "Killing used without context makes an event seem one-sided for which this event was not.
Conclusion Careful examination of the facts reveal that the articles and sites listed as examples actually use the words "died" and "death" as well as "killing". Wikipedia should always be about facts. The article on Osama Bin Laden is full of facts. The title "The Death of Osama Bin Laden" is appropriate. Boston1775 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: You left out the following twelve books about the Death of Osama Bin Laden.....
  • Daniels, Cody Stephen (2011). The Stars Of Abbottabad: A Story About The Death of Osama Bin Laden. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781461174165.
  • Department of Defense (2011). Osama bin Laden: Death in Abbottabad - Official Story of the Navy SEAL Raid into Pakistan, Videos Captured from the Compound, Implications for Future of al Qaeda, Legal and Military Issues. Jerome, ID: Progressive Management. ISBN 9781422054574.
  • Donahue, Raymond V. (2011). The death of Osama bin Laden and related operations. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 9781614704799.
  • Fisk, Robert (2016). Robert Fisk on Afghanistan: Osama bin Laden: 9/11 to Death in Pakistan (History As It Happened). London, England: Independent Print Limited. ISBN 9781633533639.
  • Hoffman, Bruce (2016). The Evolution of the Global Terrorist Threat: From 9/11 to Osama bin Laden's Death (Columbia Studies in Terrorism and Irregular Warfare). New York City, NY: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231168991.
  • Labay, David (2011). What Does The Death of Osama Bin Laden Mean to You?. Kent, England: Null Publishing. ISBN 9781257742936.
  • Lewis, Jon E. (2014). The Mammoth Book of Covert Ops: True Stories of Covert Military Operations, from the Bay of Pigs to the Death of Osama Bin Laden. London, England: Robinson. ISBN 9781780337852.
  • Rivers, Eric (2012). Enemy Killed in Action: The Death of Osama bin Laden. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781480126893.
  • Rollins, John (2012). Osama bin Laden's Death: Implications and Considerations. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781481217170.
  • Slough, Andrew E. (2011). High Value Target: Avenging the Death of Osama Bin Laden (a Novel). Minneapolis, MN: Mill City Press, Inc. ISBN 9781936780808.
  • Soufan, Ali (2017). Anatomy of Terror: From the Death of bin Laden to the Rise of the Islamic State. New York City, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393241174.
  • Veitch, James (2011). The death of Osama Bin Laden and the future of Al-Qaeda. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Institute of Peace and Security Studies. ISBN 9781466341937. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston1775 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Fun game:
    • O'Neill, Robert (2017). The Operator: Firing the Shots that Killed Osama bin Laden and My Years as a SEAL Team Warrior. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5011-4505-6.
    • Owen, Mark; Maurer, Kevin (2014). No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-451-46874-1.
    • Davis, Darren G.; Maida, Jerome (2012). Killing Geronimo: The Hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4516-6746-2.
    • Fury, Dalton (2009). Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man. St. Martin's Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4299-6076-2.
    • Panzeri, Peter (2014). Killing Bin Laden: Operation Neptune Spear 2011. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-0409-9.
    • Fielding, Nick; Fouda, Yosri (2011). Capture Or Kill: The Pursuit of the 9/11 Masterminds and the Killing of Osama Bin Laden. Skyhorse Publishing Inc. ISBN 978-1-61145-400-0.
    • Strawser, B. (2015). Killing bin Laden: A Moral Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan US. ISBN 978-1-349-49458-3.
    • Pfarrer, Chuck (2011). SEAL Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden. St. Martin's Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4299-6025-0.
    • Garbus, Julia (2015). The Assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Greenhaven Publishing LLC. ISBN 978-0-7377-7306-4.
    Nice try removing the URLs to avoid the blacklisted books. Self published books (CreateSpace) should be disqualified. I have you beat 13 or 12 to 9. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Can't add new rules to the game after the opening whistle. If it has an ISBN number it is a book. And you can search every single one of those ISBN numbers and find the book. It is pretty simple. I decided not to enter the 35 otehr titles from the British Libray because they were Thesis, Magazines and other things that were not officially "books". And then the Library of Congress had a zillion as well. So its 13 to 13. Which basicaly proves my point that Killing is not overwhelmingly more popular than Death. Anyway either tomorrow or the next day the seven days are up and the lack of consensus will probably means it stays where its at. But we shall see what the administrators decide. Boston1775 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
And thanks for signing my name to my previous entry after I forgot. Boston1775 (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the WP:EUPHEMISM arguments above. Browsing through Special:AllPages?from=Death+of, "Death of..." titles are generally used for people who died by accident, natural causes, suicide, or unclear circumstances. Articles about people who were shot to death generally have titles such as "Shooting of...", "Murder of...", "Assassination of...", or "Killing of...". We can rule out "murder" and "assassination" for this case, as those are clearly POV and loaded terms. That leaves us with "Shooting of Osama bin Laden" (which I would also support as an alternate option) and "Killing of Osama bin Laden".
I think it's also worth pointing out that the article already uses the language "was killed" in the first sentence and refers to his death as a "killing" three other times in the lead. There's even a section titled "Killing of bin Laden". This move would simply put the title in agreement with the body of the article. Surachit (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My view is that each move discussion ought to be evaluated according to the merits of its particular arguments. I would caution against extrapolating move discussions, even though there are parallels here. There are also possible differences, such as the passage of time, which could result in a different COMMONNAME, and so on. No opinion about the move discussion itself as I have yet to study the matter or closely read the arguments submitted thus far. El_C 19:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The word "killing" puts the focus on the people who killed him. The word "death" keeps the focus on Osama. The more relevant person in this case is Osama. Red Slash 23:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    This argument is so POV that I do not know what to say. It also makes no sense. Bin Laden's name is in the title. I am not sure how it is not focused on him. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Red Slash and Coffeeandcrumbs: I would agree that "killing" puts the focus on the people who killed him. The word has a negative connotation and imho frames the event as a guilty party killed an innocent person. "Death" is more NPOV and is commonly used in Wikipedia.Dig deeper talk 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    There is nothing wrong with putting some of the focus on the people who killed him. The article details how they trained, practiced, executed this operation. Much of the article focuses on the planning stages of the operation. It also details the search for his whereabouts. "Killing" has no connotation of guilt unlike "murder" or "manslaughter". We kill animals to eat them and many people consider that as acceptable and free of guilt. "Death" is unnecessarily euphemistic and ambiguous. It most often refers to the end of a life through other means besides at the hands of another human. He did not just die; someone killed him.
    I also note that a member of the Seal Team published a book about the operation. He titled his book No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama bin Laden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Both titles are applicable. "Killing" is more specific, and there is no doubt that is what happened. My support is weak because I cannot figure out what title is least POV. "Death" can obscure the fact that he was killed, but on the other hand "Killing" does have negative connotations, implying it was deliberate and/or wrong. "Killed" is also used for other deaths (killed in a plane crash), but "killing", requires someone to do the "-ing" park. I don't think we can have a direct comparison with Soleimani. Bin Ladin was a stated top-priority target for the U.S. for many years as part of an ongoing war on terror, so in this sense he was a "dead man walking". The killing of Soleimani, on the other hand, was something that nobody had seen coming. There is also (maybe) a difference in intent. It is a bit unclear whether this operation was a kill mission or a kill-or-capture mission. Soleimani was deliberately killed. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISE, which instructs us to only be as precise as is actually necessary. It's also a WP:NPOV problem; as Red Slash put it: 'The word "killing" puts the focus on the people who killed him. The word "death" keeps the focus on Osama.' Given that lame-ass Hollywood movie, there's already been too much borderline-propagandistic focus on the people who killed him. Military people following orders and procedures and doing their [sometimes fatal] job isn't the encyclopedic topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Since multiple people are making the point that "killing" somehow shifts the focus away from bin Laden, even though the "...of bin Laden" part of the title remains the same, I'll give my rebuttal. The word "killing" puts the focus on the killing, which is what the article is about. The article isn't about his "death". It's not about his cardiac arrest, or loss of blood, or whatever medical factor it was that led to his biological death. It's about the fact that he was killed. It's about the planning that led to him being killed and the aftermath of the fact that he was killed.
It's not POV to acknowledge the fact that he was killed. To try to obfuscate that fact, that is what would be an NPOV problem. Surachit (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Nah. Except in unusual cases, any article in which we talk about the death of the subject does not dwell (even in main-article prose) on the exact medical processes of death, either. Only a general cause is given, unless there's an unusual reason to get more specific. (And we're often even more vague, e.g. "died on [date], after a long illness".) Notably, our death-related section headings and article titles do not (except, again, in unusual contexts and for good reason) say things like ==Later life, and death by falling off a ladder==, or [[Death by overdose of Michael Jackson]] or ==Death by suicide==, or [[Suicide of Adolph Hitler]], which are what would be actually be analogous to [[Killing of Osama bin Laden]]. We do often have [[Murder of Aybee Ceedee]], but that's because the real scope/subject/focus of the article is almost always the investigation and prosecution of the crime, not the killing per se. Here, the material is more focused on the the actual ending of bin Laden's life, not on any kind of aftermath for the "perpetrators" (nor the "legacy" of the "tragedy" for surviving family members and the local community, and yadda yadda). The aftermath material here is socio-political, not about bin Laden's friends and family (except for a single sentence about his will) or some US soldiers. It's just a different kind of article. In the end I'm not gonna have my head asplode if this moves to "Killing of...", but I don't think it's a good idea, because of the shift of focus to the "killers" and the tendency to analogize to a murder. Maybe it's a subtle point, but I'm not convinced it's an invalid one, by arguments above or below. PS: All that said, because this article also includes manhunt material, and the meat of the killing part is that he could have surrendered but did not, a completely different kind of rename might be possible, though I'm not sure exactly what. Something that encompasses the entire hunt-to-death series of events, which neither "Death of" nor "Killing of" gets at.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: - You know, reading through your comments, I'm a bit surprised Death of Adolf Hitler is "Death of..." and not "Suicide of...". It doesn't look like that move has been discussed on the talkpage. I'm slightly worried that the "Death of..." title is the result of conspiracy theory nutters who don't buy the official narrative. Perhaps a move discussion there is also appropriate... NickCT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Ha! After making the comment above, I checked the earliest version of the page. It does look like it was started by a conspiracy theorist nutter. NickCT (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is about the killing per se. Most of the sections are exclusively about the perpetrators (the sections "The search for bin Laden", " Operation Neptune Spear", " Code name", "Derivation of intelligence", etc.) and the other sections are about the aftermath of the fact that he was killed.
And you don't have to make up hypothetical titles like "Death by overdose of Michael Jackson", because there already are articles with the "Killing of x" format. There are even more articles with the "Shooting of" and "Assassination of" format, and as you mentioned, "Murder of". "Death of" is by no means the standard for articles about homicides. It's usually used for cases where the circumstances are not entirely clear (JonBenet Ramsey, Michael Jackson, Caylee Anthony, Eric Garner), or for deaths which had a particular impact. The Death of Benito Mussolini ended the Italian campaign. The Death of Muammar Gaddafi ended the Libyan Civil War. The Death of Joseph Smith triggered a succession crisis. The death of bin Laden didn't significantly affect the war on terror or the war in Afghanistan. The most notable thing about it is the manner in which he was killed, not the fact that he died. Surachit (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late and there's been a wall of text since my contribution (Death of Brian Deneke) and the response, but it's also WP:OTHERSTUFF to say that we should change the title name because "killing" is now more popular on Wiki. In fact, suggesting a change in order to conform to other articles is about the best example of why OTHERSTUFF exists that I can think of. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, WP:CONSISTENT does encourage having similar titles for similar articles. But this should not be misinterpreted to mean that an article about the accidental overdose death of Michael Jackson should be named in a similar ways as the killing of Osama bin Laden. "Killing" conveys intent but not guilt; actus reus but not mens rea. Since he did not surrender, he was killed.
@Hebsen: As the article says: CIA Director Leon Panetta said on PBS NewsHour: "The authority here was to kill bin Laden. ... Obviously under the rules of engagement, if he in fact had thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But, they had full authority to kill him." See §Objective which makes it pretty clear that it was a kill mission but U.S. military rules of engagement dictate that they do not "kill unarmed people trying to surrender". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I have read that section. There is a difference between having the authority to kill some, and be given an order to do it. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Still oppose. @Coffeeandcrumbs: originally said that the purpose of bringing this forward now is because Since then, the use of the prefix "Killing of ..." has become more common on Wikipedia. Would Coffeeandcrumbs kindly provide more evidence of this Wikipedia trend. The trend I see is that "Death of ..." is much more common and there is no "trend". See Death of Muammar Gaddafi, Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Death of Joseph Smith, Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Jennifer Laude, Death of Phillip Walters.Dig deeper talk 01:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    I have already replied to this. Please stop bludgeoning me with this question. If you are not convinced by my argument, fine. There is no need for ad hominem. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    There is no ad hominem. @Coffeeandcrumbs: originally brought forward this proposed name change arguing there is a Wikipedia trend. There is no trend, pure and simple. The foundation for this proposal is weak. Also note the definition of "bludgeon" from WP:BLUDGEON. Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. . It is good this was brought up. Editors who wish to read through the comments above, can see for themselves who is bludgeoning.Dig deeper talk 02:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    When I am pinged I respond. However, questioning my motives as you have done repeatedly in other comments above, instead of discussing the merits of my arguments, is the definition of ad hominem. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    The question only appears to be ad hominem because it hasn't been answered, hence it is being asked again and again until the evidence that "Killing of..." is supplied and shown to be more common. You say you've answered the question - but where? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    Here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    That doesn't answer the question and state that "Killing" has become more popular than the term "Death". It only states (without evidence) that some "Death" articles have been renamed. The two are not the same thing. Also note that my argument is not based on OTHERSTUFF, but primarily that I think the term "killing" places emphasis on the act itself, whereas "death" includes the circumstances and leading up to and after. I accept that not everybody sees it that way, but I do. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    Chaheel Riens, I did not mean more common than "Death of...". I meant more commonplace. In fact, the very next sentence says "Death of ..." is admittedly more often used than "Killing of ...". Please read my entire statement. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DigDeeper and others above. Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • See also: Talk:2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike#Requested move 14 January 2020.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems like a simple case of precision. Someone completely naive knows more about the event from the title if you use the word "killing". A "Death of..." title just tells a reader someone died. A "Killing of..." title tells a reader that someone died and that they were intentionally killed. NickCT (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support in this case, we have a case where the mission wasn't specifically to assassinate the target, although that was certainly authorized. Alas it is still "killing". WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments have no place here.--Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per NickCT. Simple case, as he says. Jusdafax (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support "Killing of" is more precise and more common. Google Trends indicates it is four time more common. See WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME. Qono (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – "Killing" is COMMONNAME per books, see C&C's list above for some examples. – Levivich 03:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Death of Obama bin Laden" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Death of Obama bin Laden. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. Impressive sources make this an easy decision. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden – Since I last raised this issue, there have been 2 major developments. (1) Google ngrams has released an update. See this ngram which clearly shows the COMMONNAME. (2) On Wikipedia, titles starting with "Killing of ..." have gained wider acceptance, see Killing of George Floyd (RM on May 27, 2020), Killing of Eric Garner (RM on June 2, 2020), Killing of Ahmaud Arbery (RM on June 21, 2020) and the many recent articles created under this prefix. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per nomination. Since there is no doubt that Osama bin Laden met a violent death, in that he was indeed killed, the use of the all-encompassing form "Death of..." is needlessly indistinct and opaque, having been used as the main title header for a variety of non-violent historical deaths, such Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of Edgar Allan Poe or Death of Michael Jackson. Although, according to accounts, bin Laden's death occurred directly as a result of firearm use, in this specific case, "Shooting of..." would seem an inadequate description, in the manner of an attempted assassination. Thus, "Killing of..." does appear to be the most intuitive form, since "Assassination of..." and "Execution of..." carry political connotations and have been more-or-less rejected in previous such discussions. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that "killing of" has been recently applied, it seems to open a whole new interpretation and one which is subject to political labeling, or as well stated above by User:Roman Spinner, "political connotations". I believe that "death of" is a more appropriate way to address the passing of someone regardless of manner of death and is a more neutral approach. If you look at the definition of death, the term is all encompassing, "Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism." If we want to define the reason for death, "cause of death" would be more appropriate so long as there is supporting foundation for the cause of death. For these reasons, I oppose changing the term from "death of" to "killing of". Jurisdicta (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    We have many titles that have "political connotations". For example, to me, The Troubles is offensive and gives the connotation that the death and suffering of thousands perhaps tens of thousands of people was a mere inconvenience, a very imperialistic and colonial point of view. However, I was taught a lesson in early 2019 that COMMONNAME rules on Wikipedia. We need to avoid our own POV or some theoretical "political connotation" and apply the same standard to all subjects so as to keep a NPOV. Bin Laden did not just die, he was killed and IMO rightly so. We should simply say so. Unless we are going to move all these articles to "Death of ...", we cannot cherry-pick which goes where. The common name as shown in the Google Ngram is Killing of Osama bin Laden and so should the title of the article be. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't really like the "Killing of..." title formatting personally, but I have to admit that it has indeed become much more accepted on Wikipedia in recent months. In this case specifically, I think even the U.S. military would agree that they "killed" bin Laden. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The poor sod was indeed killed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons above & wider implicit consensus on the matter in general. COMMONNAME probably holds up, but it's also more consistent in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support — most reputable sources (including Obama, who ordered the raid) agree that he was killed. Moreover, the opening sentence of the lead already says "Osama bin Laden ... was killed ..." (emphasis added). RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, because he was certainly killed. The word killing is more precise than death, so is more appropriate for the title. Jim Michael (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - firstly, on Wikipedia in general we have been moving away from the less descriptive and more euphemistic phrase "death of..." in favor of the more descriptive and direct "killing of..." Some of you may already know this but if not, this is a recent and extensive community discussion of the topic [10], which has resulted in name changes across the encyclopedia. Secondly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "to kill" as follows: "To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc." By contrast, "murder" implies intent and unlawfulness: "To kill (a person) unlawfully, spec. with malice aforethought (in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence); to kill (a person) wickedly, inhumanly, or barbarously." The use of the term "killing" does not by itself indicate a crime is committed: merely that one persons death was directly caused by another, even if that causation was not intentional. Lastly, while some sources disagree on the ethical basis or legality of the killing, all sources and parties agree on the manner of death, which is the killing by another human being, justifiable or not. For instance Ben Ferencz, the Nuremberg prosecutor who later became instrumental in the formation of the International Criminal Court, told the BBC that "Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law [11]." Similarly, some of the soldiers who state that they killed Bin Laden use the language of "killing" directly, as in "The Day I Killed Osama Bin Laden" [12]. In sum, everyone seems to agree that Bin Laden was killed and has no problem stating this directly. The single oppose vote above objects to the term on the grounds that it is political. However, many killings are political killings. To quote again from the book of one of the soldiers who killed Bin Laden: "Rob kills the world's most wanted terrorist" (referring to himself in the third person) [13]. Rob views his own declared act of killing in explicitly political framework of combating terrorism. A consultant for Special Operations Command expressed a similarly political, but somewhat more cynical view: "the killing of bin Laden was political theatre designed to burnish Obama’s military credentials" [14]. Given all the issues involved, describing Bin Laden's killing as mere a "death" seems the more partisan action here. -Darouet (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I'm ordinarily opposed to "Killing of" titles, but this was a major military operation. It involved much more than the death of one man, although killing him was clearly the goal of the operation. Somehow, "Killing of" seems more befitting of such a large, pre-planned, and well-coordinated action. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This was an entire military operation aimed at the killing of a single man. "Death of" is far too vague. Dimadick (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related cat & articles

Now the article has been moved from Death to Killing, similar alterations to the category & articles containing Death of Osama should likewise be moved. Is the consensus to move this article sufficient, or does there need to be a move discussion for each? Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

17 captured

The infobox says "17 captured" but is that accurate? That appears to be the number of people inside the compound who were not killed. Can we say they were captured when they were never transported or held after the raid ended? Do we have a source that says they were captured? GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link in citation 137, under Identification of the body https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20060734-503543.html has been moved, now availible here https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20060734-503543.html 82.26.20.2 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation 137 is this, also both of the links you posted are the same, and both 404. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
...total brainfart there. Citation is 131 (literally saw that i'd messed that up and forgot to change it) and the correct link is https://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-seals-forgot-to-bring-a-tape-measure/ 82.26.20.2 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

Hello, I would like you to change the part of the Wikipedia article on Osama Bin Laden that he was buried in accordance with Islamic law. This is untrue because Muslim tradition dictates that a Muslim man should be laid to rest on land and it is disgraceful to have him buried at sea. Regardless of what a horrible person Bin Laden objectively was, this is an incorrect narrative that perpetuates that the US is upstanding in all their foreign dealings which is untrue. Article below explains that without knowing for sure if the proper people were present during his burial, we cannot definitively say it was carried out correctly. Please see the article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-13261680 Thank you 192.182.149.61 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The section entitled "handling of the body" already discusses this.
SSSB (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Source?

What is the source of the claim: "Their mission was to interdict any Pakistani military attempts to interfere with the raid."? There is no source given for this. The next statement has a source indicated but I can't seem to find it in the next sentence's source.

178.164.216.156 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Typo?

Acronym GPVNG-18 should read GPNVG...short for Ground Panoramic Night Vision Goggles.

Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.198.214 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Section: 2.2 Planning and Execution, 1st Paragraph, Last Sentence.

"Administration attorneys condidered legal implications and options before the raid."

It should be considered

Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:38a0:7f90:586f:bbc2:d114:a77a (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd spelling, I agree, had been used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.1.178 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

This statement needs citation or a source:

According to journalist Seymour Hersh and NBC News, the U.S. was tipped off about bin Laden's location by a Pakistani intelligence officer who offered details of where the Pakistani Intelligence Service held him in detention in exchange for a bounty. **add citation needed*** 205.221.125.163 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

politico article

[15] Long article about the operation in case it hasn't been mentioned yet. Many quotes and photos. I'm sure there is usable info in it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

Please replace this quote, attributed to president Obama, first bullet point under identification of body:

"We donated a $60 million helicopter to this operation. Could we not afford to buy a tape measure?"[140]

With this quote:

“You just blew up a $65 million helicopter and you don’t have enough money to buy a tape measure?” Source: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/30/osama-bin-laden-death-white-house-oral-history-484793

The source in the original quote is a broken link.

Thank you. 173.28.213.150 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

27katsnath (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

HI, Osama Bin Laden's death is reported to be on 5/1/11 by news sources from that day. Can we, with your cooperation, please fix it?

An avid reader

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Felix Sater

Judge I. Leo Glasser (https://www.fjc.gov/node/1381276) confirmed that Russian-American Felix Sater helped the U.S. government track down Osama bin Laden as he provided the telephone number of Osama bin Laden: — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Sater — https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/444185-trump-associate-gave-us-government-osama-bin-ladens-phone-number — https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/16/felix-sater-osama-bin-laden-trump-number-1329662 —

— Please include in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.70.129 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

— — Is no one against it? I shall include it then. If you have arguments against that, you have a week or two. Don't just revert it after that, I gave you time. 90.154.70.129 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2022

Special Boat Service - https://www.deccanherald.com/content/159879/two-british-officers-played-key.html The SBS played a role in op neptune spear 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:F516:D1A5:6761:A723 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the 3rd paragraph, second line from the bottom it says "How their defence was breached..." but its spelled "defense" 97.113.112.155 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

the article is written in American English, we spell it as "defense" 12.106.179.196 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
my mistake, i misread the comment... 12.106.179.196 (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit needed: garbled reference

In the first paragraph of the "Legality: Under U.S. law" section, the second sentence ("Lee has initiated several attempts to repeal the authorization.") makes a garbled proper name reference to "Lee" but this name reference is not explained. No other references in the article to a "Lee" relate to this congressional repeal action. Edit needed. 97.116.33.15 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Why isnt George W Bush jr in this article?

This entire plan was created by George W Bush Jr and his team not Barrack Obama. Obama just happened to be president when the plan was carried out. Please correct the article 97.113.112.155 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The article specifies (in the "Planning and Final Decision" section) that the actual operation plan was begun in January 2011, during the Obama administration. Therefore, not correct to claim that "entire plan was created by George W. Bush and his team." 97.116.33.15 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

In the first sentence “May 2” should be “May 1”, the date of the event. 206.188.201.239 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added an Efn to clarify. It was early morning (May 2) local time, which corresponds to later afternoon of the previous day in the US. The relevant date to include here is that based on local time. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

After action report

I suggest you internally link after action report in Killing of Osama bin Laden § Killing of bin Laden. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:AFEF:A9F7:EA5:1764 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

British Special Boat Service's role

Is there a source that shows that the British Special Boat Service was involved in the killing of Osama bin Laden? Parham wiki (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Parham wiki. Disclaimer, I have no special knowledge on this topic. The Daily Express, while not a reliable source, says here: "[...] when US Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden’s lair last week [two SBS officers'] top secret role has been described as crucial for the success of the mission. [...] Britain’s SBS officers were involved in the briefings prior to the attack." Given this is a special forces matter, it is unlikely anyone official will confirm SBS involvement. But, assuming the article is correct, and the men did not act on their own responsibility, the SBS was indeed involved in the killing insofar as they helped with the preparation. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:AFEF:A9F7:EA5:1764 (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden/Archive_5&oldid=1224489374"