Talk:Reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sidebar Language Links

Not sure what happened, but all of the sidebar language links go out to foreign languge articles on Ubuntu Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.192.18 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, actually that's because this article, for whatever reason, is sitting on top of the Ubuntu article. Someone want to fix that?

 Done. Vandalism reverted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Chile

Here you find the Chile's goverment reaction. Rakela (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidential address

I agree with Muboshgu that the Presidential address section belongs on the main Death article. Therefore, I will be removing the video link and wikisource. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation error

"20.^ Cite error: Invalid >ref< tag; no text was provided for refs named afplive; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text"

The text was probably copied from the Death of.. article without the original tag. Looking at the Death of.. article source, the tag may be this one:

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0B4t5TOkA9TulK0IK4JYjRG8UqA?docId=CNG.f6de33d85ff1350769dec913bc2a4047.01 | title=Death of Bin Laden: Live report | publisher=AFP | accessdate=May 2, 2011}}</ref>

-76.103.87.239 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing that out! BurtAlert (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jihadist websites

Here's a rs/v article about what the Jihadist websites are saying [1]. Rklawton (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a reliable source, but it looks like those are just forum posts from people who support bin Laden. I don't think random fans' reactions are notable enough for inclusion in this article. BurtAlert (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sohaib Athar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sohaib Athar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohaib Athar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cuban reaction

For those who are working on this article: "Cuban state media said Monday that the death of al- Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is meant to 'distract attention' from the international military intervention in Libya." Location (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem appropriate to add, as it seems to be editorials by various media outlets and not statements by state officials. Abrazame (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopian reaction

Ethiopia Welcomes Death of Osama Bin Laden Location (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it. Abrazame (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment of Pakistan ambassador to U.S. Husain Haqqani

Some of the following comments can be included as Pak's reaction.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1987778.ece

“Obviously, bin Laden did have a support system (in Pakistan). The issue was that support system within the government and the state of Pakistan or within the society of Pakistan,” Pakistan ambassador to U.S. Husain Haqqani said.

Mr. Haqqani said that if Pakistan knew about bin Laden’s presence, actions for his arrest would have been taken. -Abhishikt 04:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Trimming of pertinent, well-sourced, accurate data is not necessary and counterproductive at this point

Per a discussion at Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 2#Merger proposal, consensus has developed that the two articles are not to be merged at this time (if at all), and that it is precisely the fullness and detail of the reactions found at this article that makes it legitimate to stand on its own. As I wrote there, the more we trim the more we are indicating that we are trying to adhere to a common or set length and additional, perhaps more valuable, responses will be discouraged. We need to let this article develop and not simply reduce everything to a one- or two-sentence gist, as we're trying to illuminate the fullness of the statements and really get to the heart of what they're communicating, not simply chalk up yeas and nays. We should err on the side of too much on-point and well-sourced material at first, and once the news cycle has moved on and the editing frenzy has subsided we can then start to evaluate if some nips and tucks are needed to achieve balance and improve readability — which is not necessarily struck by conformity of length anyway. Abrazame (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is why I have started to compount responses from the United Kingdom former Prime Ministers, head of opposition, deputy prime minister and so on. I am doing the same for Turkey and noting down quotes from ministirial figures. I will also take note if any demonstration happens (probably not)Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are Same sources we can use

Aljazeera Quotes BBC Quotes CNN reaction in the Middle East Some stastistics for the fall of muslim support to bin Laden If someone can incorparate these in to the article if not I can do this after work. Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan

Putting in State Terrorism as a See Also, when nothing has been officially determined, is definitely NPOV. Rumours and innuendo, however strong, are still rumours and innuendo.

Homo Logica (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Format

There is no reason why this article could not reach GA or FA status in time, like any other on WP. Any ideas for the best way to organize/format this article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm at least sorting the continents in alphabetic order - no reason for Europe to appear first. Trust that there should be no concern on this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

Please be on the look-out for additional images. Thousands of people were gathered in various cities throughout the US, so I am certain pictures are being uploaded on the Internet (hopefully even Commons) as we speak. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The US Military has posted some on one of their websites if you care to upload them. BurtAlert (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This link at Commons contains pictures within the "Death of Osama bin Laden" category that might be applicable to this article, including some better quality images of reactions to OBL's death. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Islamic Groups category

Most of those are extremist groups that the world barely sees as "Islamic"! In fact, the first one on the list (Ahmadiyya) is a banned cult in many countries and banned from calling themselves "Islamic" in many more. This is like putting down "Scientology" under a "Christian groups" section. Please consider renaming "Islamic groups" category to something like "Religious groups".

Also, Hamas is listed under the "Islamic groups" category but it's actually a political party (are you mistaking Hamas for Hezbolla?) Furthermore, the Taliban and Al Qaeda is listed as "Islamic groups" and again this is unfortunate because it's this sort of categorization that causes people to think that Taliban = Islam and Al Qaeda = Islam. --61.8.222.178 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We could limit it to Islamist groups, and reflect those only. But I think the suggestion of "religious groups" is over-broad. As to Hamas, Hamas is an acronym of Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement", and it is an Islamic or Islamist political party, precisely as its name suggests.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with OP, and I take Epeefleche's point. (Obviously political parties in would-be Muslim theocracies are Islamist, and it is the Islamist aspect more than the party aspect that seems relevant to categorize it by in this context.) Can we get consensus to break it up into "Islamic" and "Islamist"? Abrazame (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt many people would appreciate the difference, and the Islamic groups hasn't been about Muslim Theocracies at all. I'd prefer splitting off Terrorist, by their official designations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will agree my suggestion was naïve and simplistic if you will! Or, to put it in the form of a question, because it might help us formulate a better category, which of those groups would you put into the Islamic group category and which into the Terrorist category? Abrazame (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say we should use The state site, which would mean Hamas, Al Qaeda, Taliban would go under Terrorist, and the others would stay as Islamic Groups. Homo Logica (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and implement this. Definitely areas to be expanded. Homo Logica (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That website is US pov. See: Wikipedia:TERRORIST, which clearly shows that we shouldn't label that section as "terrorist" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:LABELS doesn't say to not label things Terrorist.

It says, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." and "Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight"

Hamas and Al Qaeda are recognized as a Terrorist organization by the EU and the US, among other countries. According to the International community, they are Terrorist Organizations. Their status has been well established. I will point out that I made a mistake in putting the Taliban on the list. They should be moved back to Islamic Organizations.

Homo Logica (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apandey, you're continuing to modify the section rather than discussing the topic at hand. Please have the discussion on here, rather than just making the changes. Homo Logica (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As the edits were made after an issue was raised on both this talk page, on personal talk pages, and via reversions, and Apandey has been ignoring WP:CONSENSUS via WP:BRD, I'm going to undo the changes that were made. Should the edits continue with no further comments, I will have to seek WP:MEDIATE.

Homo Logica (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

US and the EU is not the international community, and it says: "in which case use in-text attribution.", the headline is not attributed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's take this from the opposite direction: who in the "international community" (which I think in this context we should term "the world", as the point of this difference is that we are not in the same community") does not consider Al Quaeda a terrorist organization? Ditto Hamas. When we have the answer to that, we can determine how or if their POV tips the scales of the rest of world opinion regarding how much qualification and attribution we need to use with such a phrase, and it might help us from oversimplifying on the one side "all these are terrorists" or, equally problematic, "only the US and the EU see Al Quaeda as terrorists". Abrazame (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela

Venezuela's reaction is not discussed in the source cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.14.133 (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are three sources cited and i see Venezuela's reaction discussed in each...? Abrazame (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. I was referring to the initial mention of Venezuela: "The killing was condemned, however, by Venezuela, the Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood [2]." Venezuela is not mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article that is cited. I assume that the citation is only for the reaction of the Muslim Brotherhood? Is it necessary to cite the reactions of the other groups mentioned in that sentence even if citations are provided later in the article for those groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.14.133 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Voice of America source

Per voice of America here:

• "In Morocco, where the government blames last week's bombing in Marrakech on an al-Qaida affiliated group, Communications Minister Khalid Naciri said the entire world suffered from bin Laden and the organization he created."
• "In Nigeria, security consultant Evawere Oyede said reaction to bin Laden's death is mixed."
• "Uganda's government welcomed bin Laden's death as a 'momentous event,' with spokesman Fred Opolot pledging that Ugandan troops in an African Union force in Somalia will continue to fight the al-Qaida-affiliated al-Shabaab militia."
• "An al-Shabaab spokesman threatened revenge attacks for bin Laden's death."

-Location (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems Morocco and Uganda have already been added. I'll go ahead and move in Nigeria, but I got another source so there is more material. I'm a bit on the fence about Al-Shabaab for the location. A couple of countries have listed them as Terrorist groups, but most countries in the world don't. My inclination is to go with just putting them in the Islamic group category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Libya

People have been removing and replacing this paragraph for a while

"*  Libya (National Transitional Council) – Colonel Ahmed Omar Bani, a spokesman for the rebel military currently fighting against forces loyal to current Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, says that "We are very happy" to hear the news of bin Laden's death and considers bin Laden as another enemy fighting against the rebels. Bani also added that he wishes Gaddafi suffer the same fate as Bin Laden saying, "We want the Americans to do the same to Gaddafi.""

I haven't seen any explanation posted for its removal, and it seems to fit. I have replaced it, and any further requests to remove it, should be posted up here for discussion. Homo Logica (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It would be nice to see additional Libyan reactions, but the one used is a good start. Rklawton (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - that is a good suggestion about gaddhafi--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Holy See

I changed "Vatican" to "Holy See", as the comment by Father Lombardi was made on behalf of the Catholic Church, rather than the state of Vatican City. I left it at the end of the list, rather than alphabetizing it, as the Holy See differs from the others mentioned from Europe, in that it is not a nation. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't actually "change" it. The title "Vatican" had a piped link to "Holy See". I removed "Vatican", because as I explained, the Holy See and the nation of Vatican City are two different entities. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Shouldn't this article be merged with this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden I believe it is redundant to have an article dedicated only to the reaction to a certain event (Lucasaraceno (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasaraceno (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was there initially. This page just got forked off minutes ago... HTH --Skysmurf (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would revert it placing it back at the bottom of the main article on the death of bin Laden. (Lucasaraceno (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

This article alone will end up being more than 100 sources--adding all of this information back to the original article will make it too long. Having this article provides the opportunity to expand on the reaction, rather than having 50+ "one-liner" quotes from various nations. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is enough reaction to his death to merit a separate reaction article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Major restructuring

Hello fellow editors, good to see that we have agreed on a fork.

The structure of the article should be as I said on the original talk page. I belive it should be in a table like format with the headings:

Country - Name(and title of the person) -Picture (of person) - Reaction (what they said)- Date (when they said it)

This is article is a very good example of this we can have a similar principle.

The categories should be like this:

• First we split them up in to regions e.g. Europe, America, Asia
• Then the reaction of coutries within a certain region for exampel Europe would be Turkey, Spain, UK...
• Then we focus on that country and give quotes to what numerous figures have said there.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, an agreement regarding the fork has not been reached. I invite you to weigh in on the discussion here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This proposal of yours is way too much detail. Please see Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_1#Merger_of_Reactions_to_shooting_of_Gabrielle_Giffords – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but we must appreciate that this is a global event with a wider global audience all of whom will give different reactions to this. For example the Yemni government may say that they support the operation where as the Yemini opposition will most likely say they dont. This is my oppinion any way, we need to give merit to a global event.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The death of OBL is much "greater" (in a world sense) than the shooting of an American politician. This must be taken into consideration. As for your proposal, Tugrulirmak, I am glad that you are thinking of ways to improve this article/list. As I wrote previously, there is no reason this article can't reach GA or Featured status over time. I am wondering whether it might be better to wait for the dust to settle and then start re-structuring or start ASAP. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Scale of local vs. global isn't really the important thing here. According to size guidelines, the article shouldn't be split. If it really gets that long and it's all worthy info to include, I'd support a split. At this time, it's not appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth simplifying this a bit. Perhaps just a table with a sortable column for Nation and a column for Response would be more appropriate. I am not sure adding pictures of dignitaries is necessary, and it might become too complicated if there are multiple responses from several dignitaries from the same nation. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nation	Reaction
Afghanistan	Insert text here with references...
Australia	Inset text here with references...

... etc. etc. This way one doesn't have to worry about images of leaders, multiple leaders, cells without images available, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea I too think we should go for a simple aproach it would convey the information clearly. We should no start arranging the countries in order of geographic regions before graphing them. Europe for example would have UK, Spain...Tugrulirmak (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to see how other contributors feel would be the best way to organize responses. There may be a preference for a single table (not separated by continents), or even to separate by type of response (positive, negative, official silence, etc.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried this out please tell me how you feel about the structure.Tugrulirmak (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the responses section is too long, and also extremely redundant. Most either: express jubilance and praise the US (i.e. all of Europe), are happy but want the US to stop interfering (i.e. Pakistan, Iran), or condemn the 'assassination' (i.e. Hamas, Taliban). Can't they just be listed under these headings without similar quotes, etc? Metaknowledge (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Idk, I'm seeing that here and finding it somewhat ugly, overwhelming, and annoying looking. I like the regional breakdown with alphabetising has been done here, in International_reactions_to_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war and International_reactions_to_the_2011_military_intervention_in_Libya. They are organised and neatly arranged. They're not this massive unwieldy grey thing that just smacks you in the face and whose sole claim to order is being alphabetised. The format in International_reactions_to_the_2006_Lebanon_War looks like an interesting compromise. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What with "Other"?

What is wrong with Vatican and Palestinian Authority being categorized as countries? They are both internationally recognized it's just not everyone has diplomatic relations with themEugene-elgato (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the Palestinian State and Vatican City are both nation-states with foreign relations that function as countries. Bcatabas (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "Other" heading. I left these two at the bottom of the list, lest someone feels their non-universal recognition is of significance. Although they should probably be alphabetized with the rest of them. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Vatican City is a country, but the spokesman was for the Holy See, which isn't. The PA is also not a country. If you pretend that a Palestinian state exists, it is distinct from the PA, where the quote comes from. I'll restore the old organization. 128.36.69.134 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, is there any reason why there's an Internet poll from Hong Kong included in this article? Frankly, I don't think a Phoenix Television poll is notable enough to warrent inclusion, especially considering there's an official statement from China already in the list. I'll go ahead and remove it; if there's any opposition, let me know! 184.56.92.166 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice this before. The best way to deal with this issue is to put PA, RoC, Sawahiri Republic, Kosovo, etc, under a category of Non-UN Member Governments. It is the most NPOV solution possible imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

We have two statements by the Muslim Brotherhood that seem to be completely contradictory in tone.

• The Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement in which it condemned bin Laden's killing, calling it an "assassination".[30]
• Muslim Brotherhood second-in-command Mahmud Ezzat said: "Islam is not bin Laden. After September 11, there had been a lot of confusion. Terrorism was mixed up with Islam. In the coming phase, everyone will be looking to the West for just behaviour." He added that, with bin Laden dead, the western forces should now pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.[27]

The first condemns the attack. The second condemns Terrorism and seems to support the action. Can we get some more sources on either, especially as the cited source for the first doesn't quote as an assassination, and the second is from the number two. The quote seems to come from the WSJ, and not the Muslim Brotherhood. If they're both solid, I would suggest we add in a statement that the reports from the Muslim Brotherhood seem contradictory.

Homo Logica (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And there you have the Muslim Brotherhood. I say put in both statements, acknowledging they're two different ones (preferably noting who/when/where the statements came from) and let whatever contradiction or lack of clarity or cohesion there may be speak for itself. Abrazame (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with both statements, indicating who they came from. One is a Muslim Brotherhood release to reporters. The other is made by a senior member of the MB. If we had only one, I would think the one made by the organization is more significant than one that appears to be a personal view of an important senior member.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know which Muslim Bortherhood we are talking about? The Egyptian one or the Syrian these are the most active ones but there are other "franchises" all over the middle east.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad that the Palestinian one at least picked a different name.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

and the Middle East, including Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Somalia, Philippines, Turkey, Iraq, Israel, and the rebel Libyan Republic.[

Indonesia, Somalia, Philippinees are NOT in Middle Est. Please correct the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been changed to just Asia for whatever reason. That approach is far too lazy imo, we should have a separate Middle East one based on the traditional interpretation of what falls into that region. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Market responses

If nothing really happened, is it worth mentioning? BurtAlert (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think not. This event had no impact on the markets, therefore there's nothing to talk about (for us, of course reporters wrote articles about it). – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted it for now. BurtAlert (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Energy stocks took a hit - and that's the one area in the market that would respond fastest to changes in risk in the Middle East. However, I agree that until we have a RS that says so, we can just leave it out. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of the long-term effects, or even if this section should be re-added, but I'll post up some information.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-05-02/japanese-stocks-gain-on-u-s-earnings-death-of-osama-bin-laden.html

“The death of bin Laden eases some concern, but it’s hard to imagine it’ll lead to a reduction of risk in the Middle East, and so the market’s reaction may be transitory,” said Koichiro Nishio, a market analyst in Tokyo at SMBC Nikko Securities Inc. “The recovery of demand in the U.S. and other developed countries means a better environment for earnings.”

"Inpex, Japan’s largest oil and gas explorer, slumped 2.6 percent to 600,000 yen and Japan Petroleum Exploration, the No. 2, slid 1.3 percent to 3,900 yen. Crude for June delivery slipped as much as 1.6 percent to $112.11 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

“In addition to U.S. companies having good earnings, Japanese companies’ earnings were not so bad. That’s improving investor sentiment,” said Toshiyuki Kanayama, a market analyst at Tokyo-based Monex Inc. “Excessive worries about the future of the economy and companies’ earnings are receding.”

That's all I've got for now. Near as I understand, it helped in Asia (for some reason), but not so much in the States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note the slump in Inpex (above). BP and Valero also dropped over 2% on May 3rd. Rklawton (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would it help Asia but hurt the US? I suspect the movements in the markets had nothing to do with Osama's death, and "experts" are looking for correlations where none exist. I don't have an RS for my opinions that these "analysts" like the sound of their own voice, but the link between Osama's death and movement in the markets is dubious at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Read it again - I said energy stocks took a hit - Japan's Inpex included. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to be a non-event, not worth mentioning.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist organizations subtitle

Why are we using US-dominant designations to label these groups as terrorists? Hamas is widely recognized outside of the US as a political party and I see no reason to be US centric.--TM 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question - but one that has been resolved previously with regards to al Qaeda. The overwhelming consensus was that OBL headed a terrorist organization. Rklawton (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If that is so, I am fine with it. I am not fine with including Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas though, especially Hamas and Al Aqsa.--TM 03:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to take up the matter on their respective talk pages. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a guideline on this: WP:TERRORIST, stating that value-laden labels should be avoided. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet there are well debated exceptions. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Australia, Canada, European Union, Israel, Japan, Jordan, US are some of the Countries that list Hamas as a Terrorist Organization, same with Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Although, the latter two have slightly fewer. It isn't a US-centric opinion. All of Europe, North America, Oceania, and parts of Asia and the Middle East call them Terrorist Organizations.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the question was raised in a previous thread here and perhaps inadequately discussed: what does one call an organization that most of the Western world considers a terrorist organization when the subject is organizations condemning the death of a terrorist leader responsible for 9/11 who called for a worldwide jihad against the West? Abrazame (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, organized religion? Rklawton (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Except the organized religions that don't do so, and the fact that the number in this particular religion who do so, are astronomically small. Perhaps we could swap it out for Jihadists, but I'm a bit concerned that it would 1) be POV (vis-a-vis internal vs external struggle), and 2) be misrepresentative of their own goals. That's why I'm inclined to keep the decision under the objective criteria.

Although, looking back, I'm seeing that somebody moved Taliban back into the Terrorist Organizations, when that view is absolutely not the International opinion (only the UK and the US, with the UK being done just a few months ago). With the ongoing discussion in here, I'll leave it for now. I do think that should be moved back under Islamic Organizations, though.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there would be a lot of Islamic Organizations who would object to that. Rklawton (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why the question is being asked if there is another option. Abrazame (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in agreement with you guys on that one. It was just the only other option of which I could think. Homo Logica (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Political and ideological organizations is much more appropriate, a lot less West-centric, and a lot less weasely. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Iirc, a jihad of any sort can be called by any imam, I don't think everyone is required to listen though. I could be wrong of course. Just do things as per WP:TERRORIST and be done with it. I'm not sure that their labels are that central to this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

UBer, Terrorist is not a weasel word. It's a label. As WP:LABEL says, they are to be avoided in situations where it isn't specifically relevant, and if it is widely used. This is specifically to avoid a fringe view from being given WP:UNDUE. As pointed out earlier, it is all of Europe, North America, Oceania and parts of Asia and the Middle East which have labeled them Terrorist Organizations. In addition, I am going to move Hamas back into Terrorist Organizations, until the discussion is concluded and consensus has been reached.

As for pertinence to the article, I would say that the reaction of Terrorist Organizations to the death of the leader of a prominent Terrorist Organization, is very important to be included.

The groups defined within that section are not united by the fact that they hold an ideology, or by their involvement in Political matters. They are united by the fact that they have been designated Terror Organizations by the International community.

Flinders, I definitely see where you're coming from on Jihad, which is why I considered that as well. The problem is that there is a very contentious debate as to whether a jihad represents an internal struggle (the view held by most Muslims), or an external struggle (as demonstrated by Terrorist Organizations. That's the main reason it hasn't been done yet.

As I type, though, I do realize a potential compromise. How about we change it from Terrorist Organizations to Designated Terrorist Organizations. This avoids us making a judgment, and still highlights the view of the International community.

Homo Logica (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with jihad as you said is that a lot of people now think it solely means a holy war in a sense similar to that of a Christian crusade rather than, as you said, any sort of religiously mandated struggle, like a jihad against hunger or ignorance (and the violent type thought up by that scholar in the time of Sallah-al-din, but I forget his name). I agree on the designated point. I think that it is standard practice on other articles to basically say that such and such has designated X group as a terrorist organisation (such as the US DoS and the EU's FM or w/e the body responsible for their terror list is). I hate to bring this up, but now that Hamas and the PA have signed that unity deal, how should it be treated? Should we still treat them as separate organisations or what? I'll admit I'm not 100% on the details of their agreement. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Designated Terrorist Organizations

Figured this was as good a point to break as any. So, I'm going to wait a little bit for more feedback. If there are no objections, I'll change Terrorist Organizations to Designated Terrorist Organizations and move Taliban from Designated Terrorist Organizations to Islamic Organizations. As far as dealing with the PA/Hamas deal, I'm not 100% sure on this one either. I'm thinking that if we do anything, we should just do as Flinders suggested and move the Hamas portion into the Palestinian portion (from Nations, not from DTOs). Alternatively, we could just keep them separate, since that section would then be pretty big, and represent three different, well cited responses. Homo Logica (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think designated makes the most sense. People can object to Terrorist organisation, but they cannot say they have not been designated terrorist organisations. With Hamas, I'm very very biased against them (and the PA for that matter, but I prefer them), but I think they could be put together as they are now part of the PA government (I think that is the case anyway). We should see if they are reclassified in some way or if the US or EU reclassify the whole Authority because of the merger with Hamas (though I suspect that they would not). We better have some good sources for any classification of the PA as a whole as a DTO if this happens. I'm sort of wait and see on this as you can tell. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My concern isn't whether we can put them together. It's whether it's too much information to put in one area. Furthermore, since they were (to my knowledge) still separate organizations at the time of the announcement, it would be kind of rewriting history (albeit, recent history), to merge them. Even then, even if we decided to merge them, we couldn't add the PA statements to DTO, since they were not, at the time, DTOs. We'd have to merge the statements in Nations, and leave DTOs alone from that.

Homo Logica (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, very fair points. WP:SIZE is indeed a concern, and yes that is something akin to revisionism (a horrible practice). I wasn't thinking about it in the context of them basically being separate groups at the time (I think they had that signing deal only a few hours ago), but you are right that when these statements were made they were indeed not the same entity (if that is what they are now, I think they will unify in the next elections). Still, what if they have more reactions now? =p I do like the handling in the nations and admin orgs section. The section name is less controversial. In International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war I changed (with consensus ofc!) the title to Governments and put PA, Hamas, Vatican, Taiwan, etc in non-UN Member Governments. Thankfully only one small objection that was quickly settled. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point to make. Here's what I'm thinking about future statements. Should they make any future statements, we should make a main point of their new response, with subpoints from each, stating their original responses. It'll be a little bit of a problem with timeline, but so long as we are explicit about the timing, I doubt it'll be a huge problem. Good catch. :-D

Homo Logica (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Anyone have any objections/improvements? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and implement some of the changes Homo Logica (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I indicated below, I think that the deletion of the reaction of the Taliban is, perhaps, unhelpful. I believe that their reaction should be included.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think deleting their reaction was brought up in this sub-topic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved them to a different section. I mentioned it under the things I wanted to implement here, and I mentioned it when it has come up before. While it has been designated by two countries, it has only been two countries. They aren't internationally recognized as a Terrorist Organization. I feel it would be very POV to put them there. I could be wrong. Just my opinion and reasoning.

Homo Logica (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The DTO header is a great call. However, I am re-adding the Taliban in Pakistan to that group. The Taliban is a non-state militant group dedicated to fighting in the Afghanistan theater and making strikes in U.S. cities; they have claimed responsibility for one successful and one attempted suicide attack inside the U.S. (in fact, they have claimed credit for attacks they apparently had nothing to do with); they swore an allegiance to Mullah Omar and to Osama bin Laden. The U.S. State Department has designated them a terrorist organization, and that's the whole point of using the "Designated" qualifier. I mean, their statement is "If he [bin Laden] has been martyred, we will avenge his death and launch attacks against American and Pakistani governments and their security forces... If he has become a martyr, it is a great victory for us because martyrdom is the aim of all of us." That's rich, Pakistan's government had no idea of the mission and this group has already long been "targeting elements of the Pakistani state", unless our article is wrong. I like the DTO header, but to place the TIP in some other header when that is on the page is misleading, and misses the point; if we can't include a non-state entity that has essentially declared war on Afghanistan, the U.S., and Pakistan, then perhaps it deserves its own header in that regard. Abrazame (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Killing/Death

I know the topic is covered over at Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 3#Rename to Assassination of Osama bin Laden, but I wanted to cover it for this article too, with a couple caveats for the specific difference of this article vs that one.

I am of the opinion that, generally, we should follow the example and the nearly unanimous consensus over there, in keeping it with "death" as opposed to "assassination" or "killing". Maintain some general consistency. The main caveat, though, is that, since we're covering responses, we should try to keep with the tone of the response. As an example, in the lede, we have, "His killing was condemned, however, by Venezuela, the Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood,[2] and the Taliban." Since the objection stated is with the killing, as it is referred by each source, we should keep it with killing.

However, when we summarize a source, such as the Italian portion, "Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said of bin Laden's killing, "This is a great outcome in the fight against evil, in the fight against terrorism, a great outcome for the United States and for all democracies."" since the source doesn't call it a killing or a death, we should stick with death, to keep it NPOV.

Basically, unless the source specifically states otherwise, we should keep with death, over killing. Homo Logica (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Apples and oranges. "Assassination" was rejected because that is not how it is commonly described by RSs (we don't even have to get into whether it is in fact an assassination, as a result ... which yields a second reason to reject the term).

"Killing", however, is the common way it is described by RSs, and there can be no cavil that he was killed (that clearly distinguishes it from assassination). Also, killing is more precise than death -- which is normally the result of natural causes. Hence, "Killing of ..." makes great sense, per wp policies.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Killing" was discussed in there, from the very beginning, as the potential compromise. That's what most of the responses were to.Homo Logica (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Taliban

I would suggest that the deletion of the reaction of the Taliban, which just took place here, is perhaps less than helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

New rubric : individuals

I suggest to create a new rubric called Individuals like in these three articles : International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war ; International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya ; International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution --Jérôme MORENO HERRERO 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC) User:Jeromemoreno ; User talk:Jeromemoreno

Good call. We want to be careful, and make sure that they're WP:NOTABLE.

Homo Logica (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I created the rubric and added Marine Le Pen's reaction (a French MEP & president of the FN). Maybe, we could also add reactions from politicians of the opposition. Ed Miliband's and Ken Livingstone's reactions, which appear in the sub-rubric Europe, could eventually be moved in this new section. --Jérôme MORENO HERRERO 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Jeromemoreno (talk)

Table formatting?

Does the current format (bulleted list) seems to be working fine, or would a table along the lines of the one discussed here be more handy? --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean convert it all into one table? That would be kind of ugly imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Or a table for each section requiring one, with similar column widths for consistency. Just looking for feedback as to whether or not it might help with organization or visual appeal. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wrote my reaction in the topic you linked. As you can see, I'm firmly against that formatting. As as addendum, I could say that, idk, it's just grey as well. Seems cold and stony. I know it's just a table on a Wiki article, but still the article should look inviting. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Flinders on this one. Tables would be bulky and overbearing. The format it is in now is easily accessible. No real reason to change it from its current format.

Homo Logica (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Middle East

I'm thinking we should add the Middle East again, as its own section.

The following countries should definitely be moved there:

• Gaza Strip
• Iran
• Iraq
• Israel
• Lebanon
• Palestinian Authority
• Saudi Arabia
• United Arab Emirates
• Yemen

The following could potentially be moved there:

• Libya
• Somalia
• Afghanistan
• Turkey

My personal thought is that we move over Libya, Turkey and Afghanistan. Thoughts? Homo Logica (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just go by the traditional boundaries as shown here: [2] So by that, just Turkey should be added. It basically is countries with territory in Southwest Asia I guess. Then again, the expanded version probably makes more sense to the layperson who will be looking for these countries in the Middle East section. Also, having Gaza Strip and Palestinian Authority, well one is an errrr... geopolitical designation I guess? The other is a governing body. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree Turkey should be added to as it is classed terrotorialy to be in the Middle East. The re-creation of the Middle East section would make it easier for the leader to see what muslim counties (generarly) said about the death. Thank you, Regards, Tugrul Irmak.Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Vatican/Peru

Now that I look more closely, the comment appears to have come from the Holy See, which is a different entity than the soverign nation of Vatican City. Also, could someone look at "Peru". Seems that can't be right. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Peruvian president - my president - did say it was a miracle performed by John Paul II. I saw it on the news. Sad but true, my president is crazy.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Possibly a coup or election planned as well? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We note and cite this in the article. The miracle claim, not the crazy. Abrazame (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence was re: the claim, the second was wondering if they have any plans to prevent more and fix the crazy. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

reaction of US population

The section on the USA contains a dozen examples of citizens euphorically celebrating OBL's death, and that's about it. Is that a fair description of the population's reaction? How widespread was this behaviour? Is it considered normal in the US? Baanarta17 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it seems to be widespread, but the feeling isn't universal. Here's a blog at The Washington Post for a different view, from Susan Jacoby. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If the question is, "Did the several hundred people on television dancing in the streets represent the literal response of a significant percentage of 310,300,000 Americans?", the answer is no. In fact, our own refs for that section point out that even some among those who chose to congregate in those sites at that moment felt like the revelers were a bit jarring in contrast to their own, relieved but more circumspect feelings. I remember reading one source that quoted a middle-aged person at one of those impromptu gatherings as noting that most of those dancing about were of a younger generation who would have been children on 9/11. At first I had deleted a section mentioning that one of the instances of celebration came on a live Pay-Per-View wrestling event from Florida where a newly-crowned champion announced the raid and death/capture and initiated among, you know, wrestling fans who had just paid to watch a WWF wrestling match live, a chant of "U.S.A." Early on I actually removed this section as extraneous, irrelevant (the other locales were more relevant to 9/11 than a studio in Florida), but when it was re-added, I thought that it might help people to understand where this came from in the room and why it shows up here. Like those who disbelieve it ever happened, the cameras go to the squeaky wheels, whether the squeak is in triumph or in defiance. There are people celebrating something or other in Times Square every night of the week, and a good percentage of them are tourists from outside the country.

Having said that, it's hard to imagine any society (that allows itself to experience joy and pride and isn't an ascetic or zen or repressive culture) that would not understand the sense of relief and patriotism in a long-delayed and hard-won victory. Do the people who danced in the streets upon the death of thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11 accurately represent the totality of the Muslim people? Of course not. (Though they may be the tip of an iceberg, they are not the whole sea.) And neither did these people who danced in the streets upon the death of the one terrorist leader who inspired suicide attackers to kill those innocent civilians represent the totality of the American people. (Though I hope you see the relative difference.) The problem is, the media doesn't cover the 310,225,000 people who were home, or at work, or stayed in the bar that Sunday night, or went to bed early... Why this is important for someone to note here is to remind editors that we are not scrapbooking the most striking facts and articles about the subject, we have a responsibility to approximate due weight in an encyclopedic coverage, as distinct from media coverage, of the event. And in order to approximate due weight, we need to determine what that is. This question arises from an effort to understand whether what we are presenting is an accurately weighted presentation of a statistical sample of the entire population's response, and as with much of this article, I wonder if we are giving the wrong impression on many points, just compiling cites to fill a section someone adds rather than understanding them in the first place and understanding how they will be perceived by an uninformed reader in the second. Abrazame (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Terror attack in India.

This is an incident which happened in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which is now again in news Due to the reactions from various sections of People from the state,(including some militants).

Here are some reactions expressed by an unidentified militant group:

1. http://www.rediff.com/news/report/blast-to-avenge-osama-kills-one-in-jammu/20110502.htm

2. http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/May/3/1-killed-10-hurt-in-udhampur-car-blast-47.asp

3. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_1-killed-10-injured-in-car-blast-in-j-and-k_1538452

Although the reason for this attack hasnt been confirmed but its strongly being believed that it has been done in reaction to death of Osama Bin Laden. Ironically No such incident happened at Udhampur for a very long time. Hence the timing of the attack proves the believed motif..

Here are reactions from Kashmiri mainland people who mostly have condemned the killing:

1. http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/May/3/cautious-reaction-in-kashmir-50.asp

2.http://www.kashmirdispatch.com/headlines/02053100-osama-achieved-martyrdom-geelani-kashmir.htm

this reaction is also being suspected to be a reason for above incident.

Tall.kanna (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this might look like irrelavent but as more info come on this incident, it will become clear that it indeed is related to the article, Its the first terror attack after Osama's Death. And is most likely a related one. Tall.kanna (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please get the full version of that WSJ article where P. Chidambaram made that quote? It only is accessible to subscribers --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Many kashmiris,not the majority, have been reported to pray for Osama.In India, Syed Ali Shah Gelani, a prominent leader of notorious Kashmir movement is speaking these words just for the sake of publicity.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/05/07/stories/2011050751050100.htm

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Osama-a-martyr--says-Geelani/784855/
:::http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=236303
http://www.kashmirobserver.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7573:geelani-says-osama-martyr-condemns-terror&catid=2:local-news&Itemid=3Tall.kanna (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Above references can be added under Pro Osama rallies..Tall.kanna (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction from Kazakhstan

“Kazakhstan sees the success of the operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden as a major blow to international terrorism,” Kazakh Foreign Ministry spokesman Askar Abdrakhmanov said in a statement published Tuesday. Location (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Added BurtAlert (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Great success! (sorry, but this needed to be said.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a lack of reaction noteworthy?

Uzbekistan fails to report the story of the decade. The article also mentions: "Turkmenistan's state-controlled media is if anything more closed, and appears not to have reported bin Laden's demise either." Location (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend towards yes. Homo Logica (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How should it be said? "It was noted by the Telegraph that the Uzbekistani media and government did not say or report anything relating to the death of Osama bin Laden. The local Pravda, Vostoka said that they didn't have correspondents in the region that could confirm the reports and had been lacking an internet connection at the time." --- or something like that. Someone can improve upon it. Did I read that right though that a government agency didn't have internet access? That cannot be right. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Individual or organization?

I added a section on "Christian organizations" and then saw that the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments had been entered under "individuals". I think the Archbishop was probably speaking on behalf of the Church of England which would make this organizational rather than individual. The same might be said about the Dalai Lama's comments. Please discuss. Biscuittin (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that, but just below his comments, is a statement from the Church's spokesperson saying that they were not making a comment. The Archbishop was speaking for himself.

Homo Logica (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Still though, as it says here, he is the religious head of the whole Anglican Church. So, his reaction is still meaningful. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. That's why I added him :-). But I did so as an individual, because it was made clear in the interview, that he was speaking for himself, and not as a spokesperson for the Church.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I need to read the article itself more, I'm spending far too much time on just the talks. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction from Armenia

Armenian MFA comments on Bin Laden extermination -Location (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction from Bangladesh

Osama's death a major development, says Bangladesh -Location (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Section

Why does India need a complete section? The United States and Pakistan sections are understandable, because these are the two countries "involved" in the incident, but the Republic of India is really a third party and a complete section devoted to it seems irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the above section. I still stand firmly on my point though - India does not deserve the weight it is getting in the article. Mar4d (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello user:Mard. I've given reasons for re-adding the india section, and why there is no need for a china section. BTW sorry to mention the word consensus, I didnt go through the responses here properly. Plz go through my message here.

1. U.S & India are the only two countries where the public extensively celebrated bin Laden's death in the streets.
2. India being the archrival of pakistan, has stepped up diplomatic pressure on Pak'. Also the strained relation between U.S - Pak' now has proved as a betterment in indo-us ties, which has also attracted the response of many indian politicians. It is certainly a reaction(aftermath).
3. Osama & Zawahiri had verbally attacked India & Hindus ,soon after the WTC attack, for which i can provide reliable neutral party sources. But they have no relevance in this article. Zawahiri hinted that “the reason for wtc attack was becoz the twin towers incorporated a large number of (Christian, jewish & hindu population) who he regarded as enemies of islam. CIA has also stated that al-qaeda is funding, training & assisting Lashak e Taiba, Jaish-e-mohammed & hizbul mujahideen (all pak’ based terrorist groups , known for their anti-india activities). CIA also mentioned about al qaeda’s presence in Kashmir.
4. Most importantly the pak’ based terrorist group – hizbul mujahideen (known for their anti-india activities ),owns the hideout in abbottabad where osama was living. I can provide sources for this too.
5. Pakistan has attacked both U.S & India verbally, by warning them against any such raids in the future. It came in the wake of the Indian army & air chiefs’ statements that “India too is capable of performing such operations, in order to get hafeez saeed(Mumbai attacks mastermind) and dawood ibrahim(world’s 2nd most wanted & most wanted in india)”
6. Above all india is one of the most affected by Islamic terrorism.
7. India has released a statement now, that its intelligence(RAW) had provided info’ abt “osama’s possible hideout in Pakistan in a cantonement near Islamabad, twice (once in 2007 & also in 2008), but the U.S was either too busy to listen or it neglected our intel’ ” , india said. And, US had mentioned it not just once, but numerous times that India is a very important ally in the war against terror. Fighting anti-indian terrorist organizations is a huge contrib' by india , in the war against terror. War against terror does not only mean "was against qaeda".
8. “42.6” million Indians had watched the news that day, beating the viewer count of the british royal wedding.
9. It is noteworthy that pro-osama rallies in pak' also included anti-US, anti-israeli, and anti-indian slogans by the protestors.
10. I've included the response of both the ruling party & "the opposition in parliament"'s responses. Although their viewpoints are similar wrt india's foreign policy, they greatly differ on internal issues. However there are slight diff' wrt external policies too. For example, bjp led nda is pro israeli & not very favourably disposed towards palestine. The congress led upa(the present ruling party) is both pro-israeli & also a friend of palestine. Likewise there is some difference with regard to the idealogies of the two parties when it comes to foreign issues. Henceforth i've added the statements made by the BJP along with those of its two senior leaders Sushma Swaraj & narendra modi, who are the likely prime ministerial candidates fot the next central elections in india. One is the leader of the opposition in india, while the other is already the chief minister of gujarat.

India’s response is too big to be omitted, and is a must inclusion, as a separate exclusive section in this article.

Also, there is nothing wrong in including local media sources. Local media was the first to report “celebrations in india” over osama’s death, while the world media was focusing on U.S & Pak. Biased reports are usually found, only in reports “while interpreting the statement of the enemy country, or while making allegations of the enemy country’s statements, etc.”
Reports on “celebrations in india” cannot contain any bias in them. Could it??

Reports on “celebrations in india” cannot contain any bias in them. Could it??
At the same time I’ve also provided foreign media sources(such as reuters) as an addition for cross checking. “Times of India” , is from where I’ve provided most of the info’, which is not completely an Indian company, but runs on collaboration with the U.S based Time Warner.co. So it can be accepted without any second thought.

‘’’About China’s response’’’ : There is no reason to allocate a new section for china’s response. Except that, they are a friend of Pak’, there is nothing else we could see so special in china’s reactions. It was just a news in china , like any other news. They are not a victim of Islamic terror, nor are they concerned about Laden in any way. The media reports were not so extensive, wrt laden’s death. Check this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/chinas-reaction-to-bin-ladens-death-muted-55883.html China's response was too low key. Hari7478 (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like my fellow wikipedian to go through this page Assume Good Faith. And please dont bring your personal feelings here aganst India. We are wikipedians here and not the soldiers of India and Pakistan. and please Assume good faith in the Global View, instead of local view. --Tall.kanna (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the recent Taliban suicide bombing in Pakistan

Would it be appropriate to include that as a part of the article?

Apandey2788 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is an unusual reaction, but it's a reaction to the Death nonetheless. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 4 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Don't mind me, I'm just a bot on the fritz. —RM bot 17:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's just leave it here (he'll just put it back anyway), and someone should notify the bot owner that it's on the fritz. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Owner has been notified. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Muboshgu. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Improving the article

Naturally, there will be more to add, more reactions, as time goes on. It's been a couple of days, though, and the article right now is looking very good. At this point, I think we should focus a lot more on cleaning it up to get it to GA or FA status. So, let's make a list of things that need to be done on this article, still.

Within the hour, I'm going to go ahead and make up the Middle East section.

Here are a list of things that I think need to be done.

• Expand the Individuals section, ensuring the individuals are specifically notable for the section. The Dalai Lama being a perfect example.
• Expand the pro-bin Laden Rallies section. More details, and responses by official agencies -- Done
• Take any "one-liners" like Australia and New Zealand, and flesh them out more. Not just official responses, but the actual governmental reactions. Ideally, something like, the Lybia (National Transitional Council) or South Africa responses. Lacking the kinds of details allowed for that, it should probably be expanded to be like Ethiopia or Argentina responses. The following are the countries we need to cover more.

• Australia
• New Zealand
• Ukraine
• Turkey
• Sweden
• Russia
• Portugal
• Poland
• Norway
• Netherlands
• Macedonia
• Ireland
• Hungary
• (Germany, possibly okay)
• France
• Finland
• (Denmark, possibly okay)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Belgium
• Austria
• Yemen (ideally, an official statement, or things the government has done)
• Republic of China
• South Korea
• Singapore
• Saudi Arabia (same as Yemen)
• People's Republic of China
• Nepal
• Malaysia
• Japan
• Israel -- Good for this section, but possibly expanding to its own section.
• Iraq
• Indonesia
• Peru -- Done
• Mexico
• Ecuador
• Cuba -- Done
• Colombia
• Canada -- Done
• Brazil -- Done
• Uganda -- Done
• Morocco
• Kenya -- Done

• Expand Human Rights Organizations -- Done
• Checking the article for consistency, relevance, spelling, and punctuation (Epeefleche has been doing a lot of this).
• Official responses from the United States needs to be greatly expanded.
• Rearranging Europe according to the UN's definitions -- Done
• Expand China into its own section
• Expand Israel section

We have a great basis here. I anticipate that the next step for this article, in the coming week(s), will be going over what countries actually do, rather than what they say. I'd say we should add to that base list I just made, and strikeout as we get them done. Homo Logica (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There may be some additional images here to incorporate into the article as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

update Homo Logica (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to put Europe back into Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western Europe, since, as it is now, it is 3 pages with an easy way to separate them. Unless there are further objections, I'm also going to restore the India section, per the discussion below. I've added expanding China's section to the list, as well.

Homo Logica (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we still need more from Israel? I can comb through the three best English language sites (JPost, YNET and Ha'aretz. Arutz Sheva] is not an RS) and my gf could look at the Hebrew ones (YNET, Ha'aretz etc) if she isn't too busy with work. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I added it, but my general feeling is the same as it is with China. That is to say that we should only add if it genuinely contributes. Not adding (or removing) according to what we think should have more. I'll do some searching after I implement the other stuff, but it's pretty late over here.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I needed a bit of a break from this article. I'm back, though, and just did some editing. I'll look to more of this list later. Homo Logica (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated Homo Logica (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated Homo Logica (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Merchandising

An anon previously attempted to point out various merchandising cash-ins, highlighted by several news sources. Whilst I'm not unequivocally sure it belongs in the article, I think it probably does, and is certainly a valid topic for the talk page. The best source I've found is Reuters U.S. demand for bin Laden memorabilia soars, which, for those who find the thing distasteful, at least doesn't link to any merchandisers. So - discuss away: include in the article or not? Rd232 ^talk 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Very reasonable, I'd say. I couldn't have put it better myself. This link, to a video clip of a news item, [3], is also quite interesting. 86.167.240.178 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Several others who reviewed this previously all agreed that it was inappropriate and didn't belong here. What we've got is a spammer using multiple IPs trying to promote his/her merchandise via media link in a high profile article when it stands no chance of getting in the article at all. I removed it, and the anon IP gave him/herself away as an experienced editor who in all likelihood has been previously banned for trolling. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Apparently not. But no, Rklawton, using multiple ips does not make one a troll. And why do you still think I have anything to sell? Enough rudeness and abuse, thanks. 86.139.139.127 (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's calm down. Let's all remember WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. Some people do use many IPs to troll. Rklawton is right to be on the lookout for spammers. But, some people use multiple IPs because they log on from many locations, and not all want to register at that point. That's what I used to do. But I think we can all agree that the goal is to make this article into the best article it can be.

My personal suggestion is that if it gets to be big enough, and there is enough other material for it, we should revive the Market section, since this would fit very well in there. As is now, I don't think either part has enough material or importance to be put in the thread.

Homo Logica (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"There has been a large demand for bin Laden death memorabilia from American consumers. The website "Zazzle", for example, which lets customers design their own T-shirts and badges, reported that it had handled thousands of orders for items related to bin Laden's death. Another website "CafePress" has offered more than 3,000 different items of bin Laden merchandise including customised T-shirts, posters, mugs and baby clothing. One trader is reported to have made a profit of $120k in two days. The New York Daily News reported that commemorative T-shirts were quickly offered for sale, both on websites and on the ground, featuring slogans such as Rest in Piss and Obama 1, Osama 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.229.136 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

People making their own t-shirts is not very notable, hell, I've done it. As a side-note, I checked their section. This shit is incredibly tasteless and frankly embarrassing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but $120k in two days is quite impressive, isn't it? Would you wish you baby to be dressed in clothes with such slogans? Yes, it is very tasteless and embarrassing, but it's all part of the American national reaction to this event. It's an embarrassing fact. 86.138.229.136 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Impressive, but not sure it is not notable. Yeah, that's why I said side-note though, but it's just the reaction of a few jackasses rather than a real national reaction (might not all be Americans either as I know non-Americans make shirts and stuff there as well). =p

But the sources are quite clear - it is Americans. It's maybe the few entrepreneur jackasses who think of the slogans, but it's a national reaction that makes them $120k in two days. The KSL clip is quite revealling: "$25 isn't a lot to pay for gate entry to the National Act of Ridicule". It's just the flip side of the jubilant crowds outside the White House - it's the thousands who couldn't get there. Are all you middle-class wikpiedia editors just too embarrassed to include this kinda bed-rock red-neck apple-pie truth? The article is currently "in denial". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.229.136 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd previously identified this editor as a troll. I stand by that analsys, and I'd be more than happy to start blocking his various IPs if he persists. Rklawton (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to do so Rk. Though I'm not middle class, I'm one of these (ie. a d-bag who wishes to only be subjected to top quality trolling =p). I still don't think it's that notable to have here in this article. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's Rk who's in denial: "Don't like material => editor is a troll". But good to see that some editors still have a sense of humour - you'll made a good administrator one day, Flinders. Thank you for at least expressing a coherent point of view. Block away, Rk, it'll make you feel better. And for those who missed it, here's a summary of American Foriegn policy over the past 8 years:

• Saddam Hussein
• Osama bin Laden
• Colonel Gaddafi. 81.156.23.250 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

81.156.23.250, let's remember WP:SOAPBOX. The article isn't about American foreign policy. As I said before, if this gets to be big enough that it is being noted by many WP:RELIABLE we should include it. Some of your posts seem to be hedging a bit to close to WP:AGENDA against the United States. Let's focus on just making the article better :-)

Homo Logica (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

References

India

Can anyone explain why there is such a huge seperate section for india? when India has not played any role in the killing of OBL? I think the only seperate section belongs to usa and a sub section should be enough for india Ichigo0987765 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

India and Pakistan are adversarial. Pakistan receives a huge amount (20B) of military and foreign aid from the U.S. The nature of OBL's death in Pakistan has cast doubt on the future relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. - something that could greatly affect the balance of power between these two nuclear states. As a result, India's reaction is of keen interest to the world. Rklawton (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Well, the article is about the reactions to the 'death' of Bin Laden, not about the killing. Since India is disproportionately affected by Islamic terrorism, and since Bin Laden was the face of that terrorism, I can see a case for the reactions being listed separately. But I'll let others opine on this. Meanwhile, I've removed subsection headings for Europe. I'm surprised though to see Afghanistan lumped in under Asia. I would have thought that their remarks would be considered of some importance. --rgpk (comment) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bring a source for the claim India's reaction is of keen interest to the world. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making that claim in the article, therefore I do not require a reference. I am making that claim here to explain to fellow editors why India's reaction is and should be disproportionately large compared to, say, Lithuania's reaction. Rklawton (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But your explanation that India's reaction is important for its enmity with Pakistan is a bad argument. China has good relation with Pakistan. By this logic, China's reaction is far more important. And there is no indication in the current media reports that worldwide people are eagerly watching reaction from India. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I will say, if reaction from India is being reported in reputed and mainstream international media such as WSJ, LA Times, NYT, Guardian, London Times, Telegraph etc, then we can include them. But local media coverage is not notable enough to be included in this article and will be a violation of WP:UNDUE. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely covered in the nyt [4]. Also, as this Guardian article demonstrates, it is hard to talk about terrorism after BL without talking about India. --rgpk (comment) 15:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the NYT article describes the reaction in diplomatic level, there is no need to mention every minor celebration in every Indian city or whether some obscure organizations are distributing sweets, which is covered in the local media. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that friendly relations are more important than antagonistic relations lacks justification. If anything, the risk of disrupted relationships weighs more heavily than the prospect of ongoing good relations. Regardless, your point about local celebrations reported by local news sources having little global significance is right on target. Feel free to remove such references. Rklawton (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The only nations which I believe require separate detailed sections are Afghanistan, Pakistan and USA (and maybe other Nato nations such as UK since they played a large role in the whole region) however I am not convinced that India’s animosity/rivalry towards Pakistan deserves a separate section I agree with user Reference Desker that China should be included if India has to be included due to China arguably being the closest ally of Pakistan Ichigo0987765 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would rather seen China included rather than India excluded because there are major balance-of-power issues at stake and any significant change to one affects the others. Rklawton (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps India can be sub-sectioned under Asia. While the discussion about the aftermath should include India, this article seems more like a list of reactions to the actual death rather than a summary of the analysis of the fallout from his death. Though I must say that discussions about China's inclusion because India is included are missing the point about potential fallout. One should bear in mind that terrorist networks that target India and Bin Laden's networks exist in close proximity and are not totally independent. Artificial attempts to provide balance are, well, artificial. I agree about the sweets and such. --rgpk (comment) 16:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong discussion going on. The question isn't about importance, or what SHOULD happen. India was given its own section because the response, by WP:RELIABLE was larger. If China had a significant response that needed its own section to be covered, it would be provided its own section. Remember, our job isn't to WP:SYNTH. Our job is to summarize the WP:RELIABLE. Public celebrations in India is important, and should be covered.

As for a source that their response is important to the world, that isn't our place to say. We have it from WP:RELIABLE that it occurred. It was a response, hence it is referenced and added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly - we do exercise editorial control over our articles whether we like to admit it or not. Rklawton (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

True. I, myself, have done that. In this article even. :D For the purposes of this discussion, though, the questions are, "Would public celebrations in a major country be relevant to the thread?" and "Do we have reliable sources saying it occurred?" The answer to both is, "Yes." I happen to agree, that China SHOULD have had a stronger reaction. The problem is that we can't cut out content because it doesn't fit how things should have happened. We'd have to rewrite tons of history if we did that :-P.

Homo Logica (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The countries which have been affected the most are Pakistan, then USA, then India and Afganistan. As the killing of Osama has in a way ignited a possibility for India to launch a similar attach to kill the 26/11 Mumbai Attack perpetrators. India has higher presence in Afganistan along with USA, and Pakistan, hence growing cooperation between US, India and Afganistan is seen by Pakistan as a grave threat. And this is the reason that there is a growing War like situations which has raised to high after 26/11.Hence India, along with USA, Pakistan and Afganistan deserves a Separate Section. This is a sample source to prove the fact.Pakistan warns America and IndiaTall.kanna (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is best to avoid Indian media for opinion pieces like this because they will certainly have nationalistic bias. Try to use neutral third party media sources like American or British media. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-Added the India section. The section was previousely deleted by "User:Ichigo" who said "India had no importance in OBL death." However, India is the archrival of pakistan & there were jubilant celebrations just like in the U.S, across the country over osama's death. Considering many users' request for a new india section, i re-added the India section - which is a consensus here. It should not be deleted. Thank You.Hari7478 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above point.Tall.kanna (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I see absolutely no consensus yet that says India should have a section. India is being given undue weight for this whole thing, just because it is an arch rival of Pakistan. India also has nothing to do with the War on Terror. I don't see any valid reason for having a seperate section. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-Added the India section. The section was previousely deleted by "User:Ichigo" who said "India had no importance in OBL death." Plz go through it with some patience.
Reasons for re-adding the india section, and why there is no need for a china section. BTW sorry to mention the word consensus, I didnt go through the responses here properly. Plz go through my message here.

1. U.S & India are the only two countries where the public extensively celebrated bin Laden's death in the streets.
2. India being the archrival of pakistan, has stepped up diplomatic pressure on Pak'. Also the strained relation between U.S - Pak' now has proved as a betterment in indo-us ties, which has also attracted the response of many indian politicians. It is certainly a reaction(aftermath).
3. Osama & Zawahiri had verbally attacked India & Hindus ,soon after the WTC attack, for which i can provide reliable neutral party sources. But they have no relevance in this article. Zawahiri hinted that “the reason for wtc attack was becoz the twin towers incorporated a large number of (Christian, jewish & hindu population) who he regarded as enemies of islam. CIA has also stated that al-qaeda is funding, training & assisting Lashak e Taiba, Jaish-e-mohammed & hizbul mujahideen (all pak’ based terrorist groups , known for their anti-india activities). CIA also mentioned about al qaeda’s presence in Kashmir.
4. Most importantly the pak’ based terrorist group – hizbul mujahideen (known for their anti-india activities ),owns the hideout in abbottabad where osama was living. I can provide sources for this too.
5. Pakistan has attacked both U.S & India verbally, by warning them against any such raids in the future. It came in the wake of the Indian army & air chiefs’ statements that “India too is capable of performing such operations, in order to get hafeez saeed(Mumbai attacks mastermind) and dawood ibrahim(world’s 2nd most wanted & most wanted in india)”
6. Above all india is one of the most affected by Islamic terrorism.
7. India has released a statement now, that its intelligence(RAW) had provided info’ abt “osama’s possible hideout in Pakistan in a cantonement near Islamabad, twice (once in 2007 & also in 2008), but the U.S was either too busy to listen or it neglected our intel’ ” , india said. And, US had mentioned it not just once, but numerous times that India is a very important ally in the war against terror. Fighting anti-indian terrorist organizations is a huge contrib' by india , in the war against terror. War against terror does not only mean "was against qaeda".
8. “42.6” million Indians had watched the news that day, beating the viewer count of the british royal wedding.
9. It is noteworthy that pro-osama rallies in pak' also included anti-US, anti-israeli, and anti-indian slogans by the protestors.
10. I've included the response of both the ruling party & "the opposition in parliament"'s responses. Although their viewpoints are similar wrt india's foreign policy, they greatly differ on internal issues. However there are slight diff' wrt external policies too. For example, bjp led nda is pro israeli & not very favourably disposed towards palestine. The congress led upa(the present ruling party) is both pro-israeli & also a friend of palestine. Likewise there is some difference with regard to the idealogies of the two parties when it comes to foreign issues. Henceforth i've added the statements made by the BJP along with those of its two senior leaders Sushma Swaraj & Narendra Modi, who are the likely prime ministerial candidates fot the next central elections in india. One is the leader of the opposition in india, while the other is already the chief minister of gujarat.

India’s response is too big to be omitted, and is a must inclusion, as a separate exclusive section in this article.

Also, there is nothing wrong in including local media sources. Local media was the first to report “celebrations in india” over osama’s death, while the world media was focusing on U.S & Pak. Biased reports are usually found, only in reports “while interpreting the statement of the enemy country, or while making allegations of the enemy country’s statements, etc.”
Reports on “celebrations in india” cannot contain any bias in them. Could it??

Reports on “celebrations in india” cannot contain any bias in them. Could it??
At the same time I’ve also provided foreign media sources(such as reuters) as an addition for cross checking. “Times of India” , is from where I’ve provided most of the info’, which is not completely an Indian company, but runs on collaboration with the U.S based Time Warner.co. So it can be accepted without any second thought.

‘’’About China’s response’’’ : There is no reason to allocate a new section for china’s response. Except that, they are a friend of Pak’, there is nothing else we could see so special in china’s reactions. It was just a news in china , like any other news. They are not a victim of Islamic terror, nor are they concerned about Laden in any way. The media reports were not so extensive, wrt laden’s death. Check this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/chinas-reaction-to-bin-ladens-death-muted-55883.html China's response was too low key. Hari7478 (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The point put by the Mar4d that "India also has nothing to do with the War on Terror." is baseless as there are numerous sources to prove that India is actively involved in the War on Terror. Many roads are being constructed by BRO, a Unit of Indian Army. Here are sources from both sides to prove the fact.Minor Indian Source,a Pakistani source and A Strong British Source. And Dont divert others from the actual topic.And please assume good faith in Asian Sources, Events and Reactions. WP:AVOIDYOU. --- Tall.kanna (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that those who would marginalize the importance of India's response haven't refuted the long list of rationale included above, I think it's safe to include India's response as a free-standing section - with the caveats noted above regarding sourcing and SYNTH. Rklawton (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Formated and added sub sections to India Mitary reactions have been added with a reference from the happening country where the incident took place for a proper international view.--Tall.kanna (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with including a separate section for India. Have supplemented it with a couple of sentences. Happy to discuss further if required. 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Horlicks (talk • contribs)

The India section has no purpose just because India has allot of animosity towards Pakistan (for whatever reasons) is not a valid reason for its seperate section this is about the death of OBL not what India and what its political partys and general public think of Pakistan a statement by the prime minister is enough undue importance is not a good thing no consensus has been reached yet either Ichigo0987765 (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the addition of so called most wanted people in Pakistan also highlights the POV of Indian editors the death of OBL has become blatant opportunism for editors with a certain POV as I have dealt with them since Osama bin ladens death we must keep it neutral Ichigo0987765 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The India section has a purpose because it has enough relevant material to warrant its own section, in fully explaining India's reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden. I understand that you're concerned about POV. Could you indicate which parts specifically are POV, and we can discuss what needs to be reworded, reorganized, or potentially removed to keep it NPOV?

I would like to remind you, though, to remember WP:GOODFAITH. People are not trying to make the article worse. They are adding what they feel is best for the article. Just because they disagree with you, doesn't make them Vandals. Let's try to stay WP:CIVIL.

It was reasonable to re-add the section. It has been over a week since somebody posted against it being re-added, and there is virtual consensus on the topic. But it isn't about popularity. We all want to make it the best it can be, so let's try to modify the section to take out any parts you specifically feel aren't relevant. Then, we can re-evaluate whether there is enough material for its own section.

Homo Logica (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate this so called consensus of yours I was away for a while and I have seen several people objecting to this Indian section in my absence....and no I dont need lessons in WP rules my freind I understand them thanks anyways :-) Ichigo0987765 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not recall calling anyone a vandal either this new section was added without consensus so your claims for consensus are contradictory to say the least Ichigo0987765 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

I said there was virtually a consensus. As I stated, there has been no objection in over a week to the India section, and not one of the points has been refuted. I, and many others, have asked you for specific points that you object to, as I ask you again. I assumed there was no longer consensus, as you were objecting again. However, that is done on the talk pages since we have now had 3 sections in the Talk pages on India, all of which have ended with no continuing objections to the India section. You have to expect that after a week of material being uncontested, it will be in the article. This isn't about past experiences, though. What material in India's section do you believe is not relevant to the article? Homo Logica (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past week 2 objections have been made already with the edit made by Hari so how can you even say the word consensus on your sentences is beyond me moreover having a seperate section for Indian celebrations serves no purpose a few fire crackers going of on may the first is the same is diwali in India it has NO global significance what so ever the comments made by Leaders of the nation are enough but local newspapers from India can never be "reliable" as you claim as I have said before this should be a subsection not a seperate one and other users above have agreed with this Ichigo0987765 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

An objection being raised does not make them correct. People had concerns. You still have concerns. I understand this, and would like to help you address it. I mentioned consensus because while there have been objections, there have also been reasons listed in the other directions, and, as I stated before, there was no objection for over a week. Local papers from India can be WP:RELIABLE about the response within India.

Celebrations as a response to Osama bin Laden's death are relevant, as it pertains to an article on the response of India to Osama bin Laden's death. Yes, some people have agreed that it should be a subsection. Others have disagreed. That does not give you the right to make unilateral changes to the page.

Unfortunately, you have continued to make WP:DISRUPTIVE edits, and I'm going to have to report you for violating 3RR.

Homo Logica (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you people have objected to these sporadic celebrations in some indian streets as irrelevant and a consensus was reached above not to include such random information infact no one agreed with the addition of extra information so your claims against my so called "vandalism" is irrelevant also :-) Ichigo0987765 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have at no time claimed you are vandalising the page. I have indicated that you are being WP:DISRUPTIVE. I have tried to add nothing to the page. I have done nothing except try to explain that you must discuss, and not just post up your reason for removing an entire section of material.

Since you appear to be unwilling to move on without talking about the talk, I will go through it in depth. I will repeat again, the last person to post in favour of removing the section was on the 9th. That person created a new section, and did not address any of the points addressed in either of the two preceding sections. The previous objections that were part of the discussions, were on the 8th. That is 7 days, and 8 days respectively.

7 days ago was [user:Mar4d], who hadn't address the points others had made. The exact words were, "I still stand firmly on my point though - India does not deserve the weight it is getting in the article." as the argument for keeping it. [user:Mar4d] has not been seen since. The response from 8 days ago was from an IP poster, who AGAIN, made a section, removed content, and didn't address the responses of other editors, and AGAIN, upon having a response posted, was never seen from again.

That is a FULL summary of the objections since you stopped posting 12 days ago. And when you came back, instead of addressing any responses made by [user:Rklawton], user:rgpk, user:Tall.kanna, user:hari7478, user:chocolate_horlicks, or myself, you went to Another section, and insisted that user:Tall.kanna's arguments and contributions are invalid because he is Indian, after deleting the section, and repeated the same argument that has gotten literally pages of responses from other editors.

Yes, that is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Would you like to move off your WP:SOAPBOX now, so we can discuss the content, or would you like to pursue whatever grudge you seem to have against India?

Homo Logica (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"agree with your point. I too dont know whats his problem. We have not questioned about their section.He seems to be jelous about the Indian section and Indian Popularity.--Tall.kanna (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)" and this [5] I dont need to justify myself anymore infront of racist biased indian editors and I stand by my comment 100% if you didnt realise "paki" is a highly offensive term and I think its use by the Indian users above is enough to remove ALL their edits whenver they make them on this page I would suggest you dont support such racist comments and look in the mirror before you blame others for "vandalism" regards Ichi Ichigo0987765 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I will state, once more, that you are addressing the poster, and not the content of their posts. You have ignored every explanation of the India section, and every attempt to discuss the topic. You have decided that you don't need to justify your edits to other wiki-editors, and for some reason, have reported a user for racism on the edit warring notification board. You are continuing an argument on the notification board, without, again, addressing that the problem is not that you want to remove the India section. It's how you are doing it.

At this point, I do not believe that there is anything I can do to get you to focus on the issue, so I'm abstaining from further participation in discussion with you, until such time as an administrator takes action. Homo Logica (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have decided to ignore racist users who openly attack people and yes I am baffled why you even try to fathom my reasons for reporting racism to admin boards I may have done it in the wrong page however which is not a problem like your making it out to be....I have explained and others have clearly explained the reason to put the India section into a subsection and note I havent deleted the section so stop accusing me of things I havent done instead stop feeding racist editors on their talk pages good night Ichigo0987765 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are editors who make bad justifications for opposing or supporting something, Ichigo. That isn't what matters on here. What you need to focus on the content. Why IS x significant? Why isn't it?

If editors use racial slurs, etc. they will be dealt with on their user pages, as it is a conduct issue. Don't take the bait. Ask them to stop, and then discuss content. If they continue, go to WP:ANI

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• Operation Geronimo name controversy --> Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden

To me, this seems too insignificant to merit a separate article. It is a reaction to the death, specifically a reaction to the code names used in the mission. Oh, and it wasn't "Operation Geronimo", so at the least the title should be changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

—I agree. The controversy regarding bin Laden's intelligence code name should be merged into “Reactions....” Is there a separate article regarding the Secret Service choosing the code name “Pontiac” for the Reverend Jesse Jackson during his Democratic nomination presidential bidHistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion on that and the decision was a unanimous keep rather than delete or merge. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the closing statement: "Discussion about a possible merger is an editorial matter best suited for the respective article talk pages". We're having that discussion now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that bit. I would wait and see if the controversy goes anywhere. If it does, definitely leave it as a separate article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge. I don't think there's much more to this controversy.Brmull (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge. I think it would work best here, not there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Without taking a position on whether it should be moved somewhere else, I don't think it belongs here by any means. It is simply not a "reaction" to the killing. It might fit more properly under the "Death of ..." article, if it were merged anywhere but that is already heavily laden. In any even, it doesn't appear to me to belong here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above comment. It should not be merged into this article. Try merging it into the "Death of" article instead. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think it was wrong to name the "Death of" article that way. If the article "Death of" were renamed "Operation Neptune Spear", "Reactions to" would similarly be renamed "reactions to operation Neptune Spear" which would allow for a wider range of topics to be included. See Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 1#Article renaming, Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 2#Rename article to Operation Geronimo, Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 3#Rename to Operation Neptune's Spear Teofilo talk 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the merge. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. Not notable enough for it's own article. V7-sport (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose -- Whether it is notable on its own merits is debatable. However, it isn't, in any way, shape, or form, a reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden. It's a reaction to the operation itself. I have been holding the same opinion from the beginning, as Teofilo, for this same reason. As it stands, things that relate Operation Neptune's Spear cannot be included anywhere. This page is specifically about reactions to bin Laden's death.

Homo Logica (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete Article has become a magnet for Opportunist POV Ichigo0987765 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• The comments are in regards to the Operation Geronimo Name Controversy. This article has gone through the Merge or Delete before. If you would like it deleted, you can tag it for such, but this is a different topic. :-) Homo Logica (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and don't merge. It is WP:Notable in itself and is not a reaction to Bin Laden's death, but rather use of the term "Geronimo" in the mission. It is not like Wikipedia is running out of space.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential sources = "Geronimo + Bin Laden" = 6,990,000 results in google. "Geronimo + Bin Laden" = 2,240 results in google news.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)