Death of Osama bin Laden, ten years later ... Options

[melloden]

Death of Osama bin Laden (T-H-L-K-D)

Twatty AfDers.

[radek]

Death of Osama bin Laden (T-H-L-K-D)

Twatty AfDers.

I'm surprised that "Osama bin Laden's death conspiracy theories" isn't up yet. I mean, it's about time!

[The Joy]

Death of Osama bin Laden (T-H-L-K-D)

Twatty AfDers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Osama_bin_Laden

The nominator was arguing that the information on OBL's death should be merged to his biography, not deleted. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

What's the saying? "Get your facts straight first, then distort them as you please."

The good news though is that OBL's biography is no longer under BLP protection now. Unleash the vandals!

[Silver seren]

Ugh, stupid IP addresses keep putting stupid stuff in the article and the talk page. Nothing new there, but there's way more than i've ever seen.

[Somey]

Ugh, stupid IP addresses keep putting stupid stuff in the article and the talk page. Nothing new there, but there's way more than i've ever seen.

It appears the article was protected from exactly that shortly before you posted this.

I dunno, I guess if someone's death is a Really Big Hairy Deal™ like this one is, then they might as well have a separate article, though it does seem a little... inelegant, such that it could conceivably be interpreted as a clearly US/UK-dominated group of "internet people" just gloating. Not that anyone is likely to care...

Still, if you look at other examples, they're either not much help or somewhat contradictory. For instance, Death of a Salesman (T-H-L-K-D) is a highly extensive article, but Salesman is nothing but a redirect. Likewise, The Death of Ivan Ilyich (T-H-L-K-D) is also extensive, whereas Ivan Ilyich is actually a redirect to the very same article.

I suppose a better comparison might be made to the Death of John Lennon (T-H-L-K-D), which is about half as long as the article on Lennon himself... except John Lennon wasn't the leader of a massive international terrorist network. Luigi Galleani (T-H-L-K-D) was the leader of such a network, but there's no separate article on his death - but that's probably because he died of a heart attack. Andreas Baader (T-H-L-K-D) was an international terrorist, but he wasn't really the leader of a massive network... but he committed suicide in prison to avoid execution, so that's probably not too encyclopedic. If he'd committed suicide in prison to avoid watching Doctor Who reruns, then maybe...

Anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter in the end.

[The Joy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427024621

Sigh... no one bothers to read the news and understand that the man died a week ago... NOT on May 2 (today)! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Silver seren]

Not a week ago, but April 29th in the morning, apparently.

[Somey]

Not a week ago, but April 29th in the morning, apparently.

Ahhh, so it was his ghost I saw in the wee-hours while I was taking a shower! Well, now I know why he looked so pissed off.

[Milton Roe]

I suppose a better comparison might be made to the Death of John Lennon (T-H-L-K-D), which is about half as long as the article on Lennon himself... except John Lennon wasn't the leader of a massive international terrorist network. Luigi Galleani (T-H-L-K-D) was the leader of such a network, but there's no separate article on his death - but that's probably because he died of a heart attack. Andreas Baader (T-H-L-K-D) was an international terrorist, but he wasn't really the leader of a massive network... but he committed suicide in prison to avoid execution, so that's probably not too encyclopedic. If he'd committed suicide in prison to avoid watching Doctor Who reruns, then maybe...

Anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter in the end.

There will surely be enough info on the operation itself to merit an article. Hell, there will be books about it, because it was a tough 10 year operation, and the endgame was 8 months.

The article on the death of JFK itself has subarticles. Bin Laden won't get that much.

[Milton Roe]

Not a week ago, but April 29th in the morning, apparently.

Ahhh, so it was his ghost I saw in the wee-hours while I was taking a shower! Well, now I know why he looked so pissed off.

Did he look like Akmed, the Dead Terrorist?

[mauve]

Not a week ago, but April 29th in the morning, apparently.

April 29th was when Obama decided to go ahead with the operation. It actually happened on May 1st.

From the BBC:

On Sunday a team of US forces undertook the operation in Abbottabad, 100km (62 miles) north-east of Islamabad.

[A Horse With No Name]

On Sunday a team of US forces undertook the operation in Abbottabad, 100km (62 miles) north-east of Islamabad.

Or to paraphrase Lou Costello, Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Abbottabad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Silver seren]

Not a week ago, but April 29th in the morning, apparently.

April 29th was when Obama decided to go ahead with the operation. It actually happened on May 1st.

From the BBC:

On Sunday a team of US forces undertook the operation in Abbottabad, 100km (62 miles) north-east of Islamabad.

Yeah, I figured that out. Of course, the Death article didn't state that at the time, I had to look within the reference about April 29th.

Now, the issue is whether we're going to say May 1st or May 2nd. I would say 1st, since that was the day over here, while it was May 2nd over there. And this is English Wikipedia and not the Arabic version.

[Somey]

Now, the issue is whether we're going to say May 1st or May 2nd. I would say 1st, since that was the day over here, while it was May 2nd over there. And this is English Wikipedia and not the Arabic version.

You should have it say "April 31st," just to add to the confusion.

Besides, what's wrong with UTC? It's Universal, remember? And if you don't use that, you're supposed to use the local time - there are rules for this sort of thing, though I suspect most people on Wikipedia don't know about things like that.

[CharlotteWebb]

On Sunday a team of US forces undertook the operation in Abbottabad, 100km (62 miles) north-east of Islamabad.

Or to paraphrase Lou Costello, Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Abbottabad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Speaking of magic bullets, why not Frank Costello (the 54th anniversary of whose assassination attempt it now happens to be)?

Also speaking of anniversaries, see [1]. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[carbuncle]

Now, the issue is whether we're going to say May 1st or May 2nd. I would say 1st, since that was the day over here, while it was May 2nd over there. And this is English Wikipedia and not the Arabic version.

I believe that English is the language used and has no bearing on time issues.

You could try making the case for all dates and times to be recorded in UTC to avoid confusion, but I'm sure that would cause no end of argument about how it would just confuse people. And some really entertaining discussions about UTC versus GMT and why each is best.

[thekohser]

On Sunday a team of US forces undertook the operation in Abbottabad, 100km (62 miles) north-east of Islamabad.

Or to paraphrase Lou Costello, Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Abbottabad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

That's the first thing I thought when I saw the spelling of the location this morning, and the second thing I thought was, "Horsey's definitely going to make a joke about that on WR."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The article on the death of JFK itself has subarticles. Bin Laden won't get that much.

Yes, there is no article on the Death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It's interesting to note that a mention of the killing of bin Laden now appears in Barack Obama (T-H-L-K-D), immediately prior to the sentence about Obama announcing his re-election campaign. U-S-A! U-S-A!

[Peter Damian]

That's the first thing I thought when I saw the spelling of the location this morning

This is rather a sad thing, but this is the second Important World News Item that I first heard from Wikipedia Review.

[Silver seren]

The article on the death of JFK itself has subarticles. Bin Laden won't get that much.

Yes, there is no article on the Death of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It's interesting to note that a mention of the killing of bin Laden now appears in Barack Obama (T-H-L-K-D), immediately prior to the sentence about Obama announcing his re-election campaign. U-S-A! U-S-A!

I'll see if I can do something about that.

[anthony]

No edit war to rename the article [[Assassination of Osama bin Laden]]?

On a more serious note, where did the "week ago" rumor come from? I heard that too, but apparently it was false?

[Silver seren]

Some early reports were saying that, I think because there was news that a DNA test was being performed to confirm it was bin Laden and it was taking a while.

[lilburne]

I suppose a better comparison might be made to the Death of John Lennon (T-H-L-K-D), which is about half as long as the article on Lennon himself... except John Lennon wasn't the leader of a massive international terrorist network. Luigi Galleani (T-H-L-K-D) was the leader of such a network, but there's no separate article on his death - but that's probably because he died of a heart attack. Andreas Baader (T-H-L-K-D) was an international terrorist, but he wasn't really the leader of a massive network... but he committed suicide in prison to avoid execution, so that's probably not too encyclopedic. If he'd committed suicide in prison to avoid watching Doctor Who reruns, then maybe...

Anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter in the end.

There will surely be enough info on the operation itself to merit an article. Hell, there will be books about it, because it was a tough 10 year operation, and the endgame was 8 months.

The article on the death of JFK itself has subarticles. Bin Laden won't get that much.

(So) now that Obama has found Bin Laden do you think he'll also be able to find WMDs in Iraq?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Dick Cheney congratulates Obama.

[anthony]

Dick Cheney congratulates Obama.

One campaign promise down, 39 to go.

EDIT: Okay, it's not quite that bad...

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Cedric]

Hearing a lot of blather on the BBC right now about people doubting Obama's statement because no photographs of bin Laden's corpse have been released. A "deather" conspiracy theory seems to be forming.

I wonder if the US Navy releases long form death certificates?

[Silver seren]

The thing is, if it's a hoax, then Osama will just end up releasing a video saying, "Hey, i'm still alive". So, I don't see why Obama would take such an obvious risk by lying.

Regardless of the fact that the Taliban spokesman has already confirmed that Osama is dead and has vowed revenge.

[radek]

Hearing a lot of blather on the BBC right now about people doubting Obama's statement because no photographs of bin Laden's corpse have been released. A "deather" conspiracy theory seems to be forming.

I wonder if the US Navy releases long form death certificates?

I called that first. See my comment at the AN/I thread. Hell, it was my second thought when they interrupted Monk and told me Obama was going to make a speech.

[carbuncle]

The thing is, if it's a hoax, then Osama will just end up releasing a video saying, "Hey, i'm still alive". So, I don't see why Obama would take such an obvious risk by lying.

Regardless of the fact that the Taliban spokesman has already confirmed that Osama is dead and has vowed revenge.

I don't see why the only two options are "bin Laden is dead" and "bin Laden has not been captured". A far better (and more likely) scenario is that bin Laden was captured in the raid and is currently in a US black site prison where he will be subject to illegal coercive methods in case he has any information that he is willing to give up. After all, why would the US give up a potential intelligence asset like that? Buried at sea? How convenient...

[Silver seren]

Good point. That wouldn't really surprise me either.

But I don't believe that people should be starting such conspiracy theories without any real evidence for such as of yet. If inconsistencies start cropping up, then sure, but I don't see any reason to believe that version just yet.

[radek]

Good point. That wouldn't really surprise me either.

But I don't believe that people should be starting such conspiracy theories without any real evidence for such as of yet. If inconsistencies start cropping up, then sure, but I don't see any reason to believe that version just yet.

Of course it was a conspiracy. It was a desperate conspiracy aimed at removing the stupid British Royal Wedding from my TV. The conspiracy just locked up my vote for Obama.

[Silver seren]

Getting the Royal Wedding off television is definitely the highlight of his presidency, for sure.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Dick Cheney congratulates Obama.

[anthony]

The thing is, if it's a hoax, then Osama will just end up releasing a video saying, "Hey, i'm still alive".

And the CIA will "prove" that the video is a fake.

But I don't believe that people should be starting such conspiracy theories without any real evidence for such as of yet. If inconsistencies start cropping up, then sure, but I don't see any reason to believe that version just yet.

So without any real evidence we should just believe whatever our fearless leader tells us to believe?

I don't think it really much matters if bin Laden is dead or not. He hasn't really done anything in about a decade. What really matters is whether or not the US government is going to act as though he's dead.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

(So) now that Obama has found Bin Laden do you think he'll also be able to find WMDs in Iraq?

Nah, the man's good, but he's not THAT good.

The WMDs are in Dick Cheney's Imaginationland. To get there, I don't know what you have to do. Perhaps be able to look out of Cheney's eyes like in Being John Malkovich, only it would be Being Dick Cheney. Might look like the intro to one of those Bond movies where you start out looking at the world, down a rifled gun barrel. Or perhaps in Cheney's case, an unrifled shotgun barrel. Who knows? If you're going to be that surreal you might as well try LSD.

The years 2001-2008 may yet go down as the craziest, wackiest years in US history since 1968-73. Maybe since the civil war. I still don't quite believe any of it.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The years 2001-2008 may yet go down as the craziest, wackiest years in US history since 1968-73.

It ain't over yet.

But I don't believe that people should be starting such conspiracy theories without any real evidence for such as of yet.

That horse is already out of the barn. The evidence that bin Laden was a significant figure in the 911 attacks is sketchy or "classified." He initially denied involvement, but later claimed responsibility, whether because he thought he could become a Jihadist superstar, or for other, more complicated reasons.

A far better (and more likely) scenario is that bin Laden was captured in the raid and is currently in a US black site prison where he will be subject to illegal coercive methods in case he has any information that he is willing to give up. After all, why would the US give up a potential intelligence asset like that? Buried at sea? How convenient...

Your question is appropriate, but the time frame is misplaced. Bin Laden was an intelligence asset beginning in 1979. With any intelligence asset, it's very difficult to determine when one stops being one. Sometimes one is more of an asset dead than alive.

It appears that the Pakistani ISI has known bin Laden's whereabouts for some time. The decision to whack him probably earned them some big reward bucks. However, the timing raises many questions. It coincides with the decision to shut down the NYC trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which could have been embarrassing for many reasons.

[Detective]

Now, the issue is whether we're going to say May 1st or May 2nd. I would say 1st, since that was the day over here, while it was May 2nd over there. And this is English Wikipedia and not the Arabic version.

And of course the English Wikipedia is only for Americans so should only consider American time zones. Let's ignore the many English-speaking contributors in for example South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. In fact, bin Laden was in Pakistan, not an Arabic-speaking country. While many Pakistanis will know some Arabic for religious reasons, I'd bet that more of them contribute to the English WP than the Arabic one.

It's interesting to note that a mention of the killing of bin Laden now appears in Barack Obama (T-H-L-K-D), immediately prior to the sentence about Obama announcing his re-election campaign.

I'll see if I can do something about that.

For a start, it's chronologically the wrong order.

This post has been edited by Detective:

[Somey]

In fact, bin Laden was in Pakistan, not an Arabic-speaking country. While many Pakistanis will know some Arabic for religious reasons, I'd bet that more of them contribute to the English WP than the Arabic one.

Indeed, most of us here in the United States probably think "Urdu" is an SMS abbreviation used to refer to another person's hairstyle or soft drink.

[Casliber]

That's the first thing I thought when I saw the spelling of the location this morning

This is rather a sad thing, but this is the second Important World News Item that I first heard from Wikipedia Review.

What was the first?

[Peter Damian]

That's the first thing I thought when I saw the spelling of the location this morning

This is rather a sad thing, but this is the second Important World News Item that I first heard from Wikipedia Review.

What was the first?

Tsunami I think.