Talk:Osama bin Laden

Image copyright

The image being used on the page at the moment is disputed in terms of if it is fair use. See the original page. Are there any images that are guaranteed free from any copyright?

The answer to FAQ question 1 is wrong

The answer to question 1 ("Why is the article reluctant to call him a terrorist?") is wrong. There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. WP:WTA only says that certain words should be used with care. It doesn't say never use a word. WP:NPOV does not require that articles be neutral, instead it requires that editors be neutral. IOW, if reliable sources refer to Bin Laden as a terrorist, then so should we. We are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Quest. Self "over the top" censoring is a huge problem in all communication and this is a perfect example of it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But on reading the FAQ answer closer, it seems the decision not to use the word here was based on consensus (at some point in time) more than the guideline. That consensus would not likely prevail today, I'd say. I personally would prefer to leave the label out as it has become overused. In California they now have domestic altercations and threats(between couples) labeled as "terrorism" [1]. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You could say widely regarded as a terrorist or designated a terrorist, or w/e, we have done that for Hamas twice. Also, thank God I live in New York (where the Fourth Ammendment may be obsolete, but domestic disturbances ain't terrorism! =D) =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You must be looking at an older version; when I added the date question, I rewrote the terrorist question, because you are right that the word isn't banned; it's discouraged unless used very carefully. It's the difference between "must" and "should", really. As far as the consensus goes, I believe the consensus was marked by a slow burning away of the dispute as both sides slowly improved the lead section. Certainly, for the past two years, no experienced editor has raised it in dispute.

The whole "if X refer to Y as Z, then we should to" is an argument I remember not that fondly from the whole debate on the term. Sourcing isn't just about using Google Books to find a key phrase and using any results as citations; the source's context should be looked at too. For example, I argued against unattributed usage because someone can not be objectively a terrorist (given that there is no fixed definition), but it is objective to say that he is on a list of terrorists. Bin Laden's links with Pakistan (high approval rating among the public, allegations that the ISI helped hide him), and the now infamous meeting with Reagan in the eighties, led credence to it being a value judgement. At the time, there were also BLP concerns as well.

My personal opinion on the word "terrorist" is that, like any words used as synonyms for extremism, they don't really add anything to the meaning of a sentence. As someone who writes FAs, I'm aware that for good prose, there needs to be less "dead weight", so to speak. We need to have tight, interesting prose.

Also, as an aside, on the subject of Hamas: personally, I'd try for consistency between the articles for Hamas, and Sinn Fein and the IRA: they are both large left-wing nationalist political parties with a paramilitary arm notable for committing acts of terrorism at times (although I might get some stick from some Irish nationalists for saying that). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

He is Ben la den, it's mean he is without religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.170.211.20 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mitrev95, 16 May 2011

Osama was killed on the 1st of may not the second, President Obama's speech about the death of Osama was on the first of May (source)

Mitrev95 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. From the FAQ at the top of this page:

Q: Why does the article say he died on May 2, 2011?

A: Independent verification affirms that a raid took place on the compound where bin Laden was killed in the early hours of the morning of May 2, Pakistan Standard Time. Per the Manual of Style, we describe his death as taking place on May 2, even though President Barack Obama made his announcement in the evening of May 1, Eastern Daylight Time.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Category "Extrajudicial killings"

If the order was "capture or kill" and the result was "kill" - why not have the category Category:Extrajudicial killings? IQinn (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

... because it doesn't fit the definition. Rklawton (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It does. IQinn (talk)

Here's the definition:

An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police. I don't think you're going to find enough reliable, verifiable sources to support your point of view. Rklawton (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You said it was a "capture or kill" mission. So it fits this definition. IQinn (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The definition also says it has to be unlawful, and according to the related article, it wasn't[2]. Rklawton (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"The definition also says it has to be unlawful" No that is not what the definition says. It says "An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process." So, where was judicial proceeding or legal process? IQinn (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the full quote which I provided. It includes the phrase: by their nature unlawful. You appeared to have failed to fully quote. Now read the section I linked that states the killing was lawful. It even cites the applicable laws. Here's another example. If police are called to the scene of a bank robbery, their job is to protect the public, protect private property, and to capture, if possible the bank robber. If they end up having to shoot the bank robber instead, this would not fit the definition of extrajudicial killing - and yet that's basically what happened in this case. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

:) You are the one who is misquoting it. That's not what it says, please do not put things out of context. And your example does not fit at all as the police was not on a "capture or kill" mission. You fail to answer the question. Where was judicial proceeding or legal process?? IQinn (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote is above in italics and it comes directly from our article on extrajudicial killing. And the legal process is described in the link I sent. Yet you show no indication of having read either. Rklawton (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's be assured that i read it a few times and the killing of OBL fits perfectly this definition. Please also understand that WP articles are not WP:RS. Let's be clear: Osama bin Laden was executed – and for good reason Yes the congress made a law yes the president acted on that law and that is perfectly fine but it is simply a fact that the Judiciary was not involved. Could you just tell us where the judiciary was involved in that or you have any source that says the judiciary was involved? 01:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the requirements to fit your definition is that is by nature unlawful. This incident fails that test, so that's the end of it. Otherwise, per above, any time the police kill someone it would qualify as an extrajudicial killing (by your interpretation) and that's also clearly not the case. Rklawton (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlawful is not a requirement and as i said WP articles are not WP:RS and that the quote says "Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful" not killing. The police as well is never on "capture or kill" missions. So your example does not fit at all. It might be a lawful killing but that does not matter the question is if the judiciary was involved or not. Once again you fail to answer the question was the Judiciary involved in any way? No the judiciary was not involved and therefore it was an extrajudicial killing. IQinn (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The partial quote you provided is a restatement of the topic sentence where it is clear that the "punishment" is "killing" and is the subject of the article. Please use the full quote rather than chop it up into little pieces. The article is reliably sourced, so the quote is reliable. The killing wasn't unlawful per the main article on bin Laden's death, and extrajudicial killings are unlawful by nature. At this point you and I are just repeating ourselves. So let's open this to other editors and get their point of view. Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context and Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS so you need to provide a secondary WP:RS that would prove your point. So please provide a reference for you claim. The question is if the Judiciary was involved in it and it was not. So please provide a reference. IQinn (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

Iqinn proposes adding Category:Extrajudicial killings to this article for the reasons noted above. Those wishing to comment should do so above. Those wishing to express their preference should do so below. Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed - Iqinn is pushing his own POV and consistently uses only partial quotes to justify his position. Most sources agree bin Laden's killing was lawful, thus his killing fails the key element of the definition of "extrajudicial killing" - i.e. that a killing be unlawful. Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment please provide at least one reference from a reliable source WP:RS that says that an "extrajudicial killing" needs to be unlawful. The question is if the Judiciary was involved in any way and that is not the case here - for further details see the discussion above. IQinn (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply - [3] end of story. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in source. Please provide Page number and quote. IQinn (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you try searching the page for the word "unlawful"? It's there four times. Rklawton (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of context? Well the word "unlawful" is on that page 4 times but not that this would proofs anything. So just provide the quote that you think would prove it. IQinn (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK: The Project on Extrajudicial Executions (2005-2011) provided support to the mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Professor Philip Alston. It carried out factual, legal, and policy research into issues related to unlawful killings around the world. Here, the subject is "Extrajudicial executions" and it is further defined as "unlawful killings". Rklawton (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote does not verify that all "extrajudicial killing" are unlawful nor have you proved that the killing of OBL was lawful (that is still debated in the sources) but that is not the point here. The point is if there was a judicial proceeding or legal process and that is not the case. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You admit the issue is being "debated" - and yet you are willing to make the assertion of "Extrajudicial killing" yourself. You know better than to do that. Likewise, it's just you who say the events described herein fit the definition (whereas its obvious to us they don't), and we don't do our editing based on that, either. Lastly, your views are in a minority of one. You aren't going to win this one, and given your frequent partial quotes and misquotes, I'm beginning to doubt your motives. Rklawton (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed I'm in full agreement with Rklawton. Al Qaeda declared war against the USA in Bin Ladens fatwa published on 23 February, 1998 and the USA has been in a state of war against al Qaeda since 12 September 2001. There is no expectation of judicial process in a war and to call this an "extra judicial killing" is idiotic.V7-sport (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for admitting that there was no judicial process. IQinn (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton, Iqinn has a history of disruption, POV pushing, as well as mischaracterizing sources. Iqinn, go slap an extra judicial executions label on Old Yeller.... another rabid dog that got it in the brainpan. V7-sport (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another definition: [4] This definition hinges on the phrase "...the deliberate killing". In bin Laden's case, the order was "capture or kill," and the actual shooting was self-defense. Bin Laden refused to surrender and the operators feared for their safety. Prior experience with attempting to apprehend al Qaeda operatives suggested that bin Laden or the even whole compound could have been wired to explode, and bin Laden had sufficient time to access a suicide vest and detonator. Regardless, self-defense does not qualify as a "deliberate killing" and so fails the definition of judicial killing in that way, too. Rklawton (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"...not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court..." Self defense? Any sourced for that? He was unarmed? Does not change the fact that they were on a capture and kill mission and the killing was not authorized by a court. IQinn (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again you have misquoted a quote. This is a regular pattern with you. Please be careful lest some suspect it's deliberately disruptive on your part. The quote was "capture OR kill". The killing was in self defense, and the operators had no way of knowing he wasn't armed when they shot him. They knew, however, that he wasn't surrendering and they could reasonable suspect they were in danger based on prior experience. This is all sourced in the article. Self-defense is not an extrajudicial killing. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You be careful with out of context quoting what is a regular pattern with you. Ok now you say it was an accidental killing of an unarmed man. What make you think he would not have surrendered? They directly shot him and did not make any attempt of arresting him. IQinn (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reuters says it was a kill mission. IQinn (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's another deliberate misquote. I did not characterize this as an "accidental killing". I called it "self defense". Please stop misquoting sources and people, it's very disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please you stop misquoting sources Reuters says it was a kill mission. IQinn (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't quoted Reuters, so I can't have misquoted them. Rklawton (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose It stretches the boundaries of common sense to suggest that all of the instances of the word "unlawful" in all of the sources above are being "taken out of context." Extrajudicial cleanly and neatly implies "unlawful." This is not only a non-neutral point of view, it is inaccurate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any disputing opinions here. Would be nice to have another voice or two but in the absence of said I think there's consensus against the category. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support The definition you quoted describes extrajudicial killing as the “killing of a person by government authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process,” for which the bin Laden raid clearly qualifies. The second sentence, which mentions that such proceedings are unlawful, is a conclusion rather than a condition of the argument. To use the fact that the attack has been declared “lawful” as a priori support for your case because extrajudicial killings are unlawful is an elementary error. Furthermore, you “don't think you're going to find enough reliable, verifiable sources to support your point of view,” just look at any official description of what happened. Does CBS News qualify as “reliable” or “verifiable,”? [5] Manx17 (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Uhm, CBS News isn't calling the killing "extrajudicial" there, Bin Laden's sons are. They might have a bit of bias. Maybe. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Uhm, it's not in quotes. Sure, they're paraphrasing the sons, but it's not in quotes so the article is not disputing the definition. Besides, regardless of what CBS or bin Laden's sons think, it was an extrajudicial killing in that it was not sanctioned by any court of law and was therefore unlawful, per the definition above. Since the suspect was unarmed, the only way you could try to dispute that is by saying it was part of the larger war and therefore he was a casualty of war, but the premeditated nature of the attack combined with the covertness of the operation (hidden even from Pakistan, who are supposed to be our allies in the war), would suggest that it is separate. Again, this has nothing to do with a question of whether it was just or not. I merely suggest we avoid euphemismsManx17 (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassinated - revisited

We've got a couple of users who would like to characterize bin Laden's demise as an assassination. Our last thread on this subject had some in favor and some opposed with a general nod toward waiting to see how this all sorted out. We've also got a related thread above regarding "extrajudicial killing", too. Does anyone favor using the term "assassination" to describe this death? Rklawton (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "assassination" is a judgmental term, and we should hold off using it until an authoritative judicial processes has determined it to be so. The U.S. administration has characterized the mission as "capture or kill", and that's not how anyone would characterize an "assassination". Rklawton (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, capture is not a part of assassination. The idea is to kill the person. I should know, I've been binging on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood the last two days. ^^ Also, it depends on what the sources call it. Not us in our desires to dispense internet justice (not @Rk btw, just general statement). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The US administration is not a credible party in this regard, and it seems extremely unlikely that this is ever going to be subject to any kind of judicial process. That's the whole point of an extrajudicial killing, isn't it? Graft | talk 01:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the stuff I said, mostly based on what sources say (doin' it right). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Per sources, standard usage of the term and legal opinion. Most newspapers are using the term "assassination". Although American newspapers tend to avoid the term, the LA Times uses assassination. The legal profession states it is an assassination under International law on the basis that assassination is a response to "war" and thus justifiable. Apparently if it is not assassination, then killing him is illegal under International law, see Osama Bin Laden and Assassination in International Law. Wayne (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Most of the sources I've read are not using the term "assassination". Therefore, neither should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm talking about international newspapers, not American. Wayne (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A Google News Search gives me:

• 33,664 hits for "Bin Laden" killed[6]
• 32,401 hits for "Bin Laden" death|died|dead[7]
• 4,776 hits for "Bin Laden" assassinated.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the same terms with .edu instead of news. 286,0000 for killed, 45,500 for death|died|dead and 111,000 for assassinated. Wayne (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of those appear to be blogs which have no editorial oversight.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt "most" are blogs but what makes you think news sites have editorial oversight? The majority dont have any significant oversight, none have peer review and all newspaper articles are considered opinion by academics lol. At least many of the .edu sites have more weight than most newspapers. Wayne (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Check the search results I linked to above. Some of the blogs are from computer classes where they're discussing if the raid would make a good video game.[10] I'm not going to debate that newspapers are more reliable than personal blogs. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up at WP:V and get the whole community to change the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting a handfull of video game discussions invalidates a large number of academic legal viewpoints? Where did you get the idea that anyone has suggested blogs are a better source than newspapers? If you cant mount an intelligent case for rejecting academic sources you are better off not replying. Wayne (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose On the simple grounds that it is inherently a non-neutral description of the event and given that we don't have any strong, sound basis on which to use that term to describe the event. That there is disagreement among newspapers (domestic, international, intergalactic, whatever) only tends to strengthen my view that we should not use this term. I also tend to think the definition of the word tends to not support its usage in this context, if we agree that the order was to "capture or kill." The Random House definition of the term paints it in a strongly negative light (the killing must be "treacherous", etc.). If we use a word to describe the action that calls the action inherently treacherous, that is very problematic as far as I'm concerned. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Alpha Centauri Daily Xenu is saying he was killed. Also, I'm not sure dictionary definitions really help us. I think we just go by what the sources say rather than our own interpretations or those of Random House or other dictionaries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Well, aliens know the real story in general. More or less agree. My dictionary point was intended to demonstrate that the word "assassinate" has very specific, non-neutral connotations, and if there isn't broad consensus among sources (and it seems clear there isn't) that this was an "assassination," then we, as an encyclopedia, should absolutely not be using the less neutral word. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rklawton.V7-sport (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Why can't we just use the word "death"? It is neutral.—Chris!_c/t 19:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since this is a matter of dispute "death' is neutral. However, since sources do claim its was an assassination we should report on that view within the article under the category of his death. I note that "death" does not preclude it being an assassination. BernieW650 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Because "death" is not a verb. The question at issue is what verb to use to describe the action of, erm, effecting his "death." I oppose the usage of "assassinated" or "assassination" for the reasons listed above by myself and others, and prefer "killed." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources seem not to use assassination much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now as the sources don't predominantly use the term. If this should change then we should revisit this. Caution all participants that this is not a suitable topic for levity, for multiple reasons. --John (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This was a military act of war. You don't "assassinate" someone who is active in a war against you. It would be an insult to the troops involved, given the negative connotation of the word, the meaning of which suggests premeditated murder as well. People are "assassinated" for their political activities/views such as Kennedy was, usually by extremist minorities. Dijcks | ^InOut 21:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Consensus seems pretty clear on this serious, inappropriate-for-levity discussion. Can probably be closed at this point, eh? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Look up the definition of "assassinate" on any notable dictionary. Technically, Osama bin Laden was assassinated. So, for the sake of clarity, I support the use of the term "assassination". --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment He was also "technically" killed. Why do we have to go as far as saying the United States "technically" murdered someone rather than leaving it as the equally "technical" killed? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think dictionary definitions are all that relevant in issues like this.

• support The google-based kind of mincing diplomacy suggested above seems like it is designed to support official fictions, rather than present an objective reality. See, for example this article by a knowledgeable, well-connected reporter. The idea that the mission was "capture or-" is not credible; thus, the deliberate murder of a politically significant figure, whether in the context of a war or not, makes this an assassination. Graft | talk 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Two things. First, your article never uses the word "assassinate," which is interesting to me. Second, your definition of the word "assassinate" uses the word "murder." It seems very clear to me that if you agree that an assassination is more or less equivalent to "a highly prominent murder," then calling this an assassination is plainly pushing a point of view. Are you really saying Wikipedia should be in the business of determining that the United States just murdered somebody? Your reality seems extremely subjective to me, in this case, and when even the articles you and the other individual below discussing whether capture was a seriously-considered option or not fail to use the word "assassinate," I have absolutely no idea why you think an encyclopedia should. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• support Graft is correct. The article he mentions demonstrates that the intention was never to capture bin Laden, as does this article[11], as well as a host of others. Essentially no effort was made to apprehend the suspect. The only way you could avoid calling this an assassination is by claiming that it was part of the larger "war on terror" and he was another casualty of war, but the premeditated manner in which this took place, including covert planning without Pakistani foreknowledge seems to contradict such an assertion. Incidentally, all this has nothing to do with a question of whether you think it was right or wrong for the U.S. to go in and do this, I merely suggest we try not to use euphemisms in discussing it. Manx17 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment See above comment to Graft, applies equally to yours. I suppose, as an addition, and sincerely with all due respect, it's slightly hilarious to suggest that "killing" is a euphemism for an event in which we caused someones life to end (ie "killed" them). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Killing to me usually implies an unnatural ending of one's life, typically in a violent manner.

• Comment - It should be noted that it was pointed out in a previous rm discussion that the vast majority of Death-related articles use Death of rather than Killing of or Assassination of. A notable exception is of course Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is from the Death of talk. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - One does not ordinarily call it an assassination when one kills a general after attacking his headquarters and shooting him when he resists capture. Generally one must have a position in a legitimate government to qualify as being assassinated -- but even if a head of state (president, premier, king) were killed as he took offensive measures, that would not ordinarily count as an assassination. To say it was an assassination would imply that OBL was a legitimate political figure AND that he took no offensive action when cornered. We do not know that he took no offensive action and it would be POV to suggest he was a legitimate political figure. If someone says John Lennon was assassinated, he would likely be suggesting that it was part of a plot done for political reasons. OBL was killed for military reasons (though it does have political consequences) as part of a military operation. --JimWae (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Because this is an encyclopedia there is an assumption that it should at least be internally consistent. So, per wikipedia's entry on assassination:

An assassination is 'to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons.' An additional definition is 'the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons.' Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives.

The attack in Abbottabad clearly meets these conditions. Whatever other issues are raised are immaterial. Manx17 (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Article spreading anti semitism

just see page view statistics of this article,its the most read article in history of wikipedia maybe and yet this article is spreading anti semitism,there is no doubt that anti semitism is there in this world, as people love to hate someone else who are different from them but that does not mean wikipedia can use this article to spread anti semitism,bin laden is a misguided man who had a narrow oulook of the world in which he divided the world into people with different identities fighting each other for supremacy,the truth is in this world people do not exist to become supreme,they exist to try and hope to get close to the creator,reduce the anti semitism in this article.Xxrvdfan1000xx (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism? But how? I think, you have got the definitions mixed up. Shovon (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

anti semitic sentences need to get reduced or toned down,reading this some ppl might get influenced and become anti semitic thinking its acceptable,this man's cult of personality needs to be reduced,people need to realise he was not a god,nor did he have good or bad powers,he was only a human striving to achieve his own goals.Xxrvdfan1000xx (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Could you give some more specific examples? I'm not sure how this article promotes anti-Semetism. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Willbat, 20 May 2011

In the "Mujhadeen in Afghanistan" section of the article, please change "arrived to Pakistan" to "arrived in Pakistan" Thankyou! Willbat (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Willbat (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than changing the preposition, I changed the verb. "arrived in Pakistan" is grammatically correct, but semantically odd--it sounds like he suddenly magically appeared there. So I switched to "went to", which should solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hacecalor, 20 May 2011

death May 1

Hacecalor (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See the FAQs at the top of the page. He died May 2 in Pakistan Standard Time. BurtAlert (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)