Talk:Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

Would people be in favour of renaming the article to Waziristan Haveli? Osama bin Laden's Hideout Compound seems a bit longwinded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.223.174 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the title was a bit long-winded as well, but also kind of goofy sounding unencyclopedic. What do most reliable sources call it? Nick Graves (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's Hideout Compound. I chose the name as that is what google OFFICIALLY call it on google earth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I decapitalized it to conform with our naming guidelines. --John (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Google Maps any indicator of WP:COMMONNAME? The double-noun "hideout compound" construction is nonsense. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose Osama bin Laden's final safe-house. Rklawton (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose that because the media widely refers to it as Osama bin Laden's compound. Compound is essential I think. I've made a title decision based on the most google hits, and for the fact he had severla over the years and avoids any possible confusion. Its a much more encyclopedic name, I guess I shouldn't have used some goofy google employee as a guide to naming conventions.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the new name is perfect. Kevin (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. – ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. New name is quite descriptive. BurtAlert (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is better. Slightly better still would be Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, methinks. Nurg (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Four dimensional"?

"The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, using drone-derived intelligence, developed "what amounted to a detailed four-dimensional 'map' of the bin Laden compound and its occupants" - how can a map be four-dimensional if we live in a three-dimensional world, and graphics on paper are made to be two-dimensional? Did the US military employ quantum astrophysics to calculate variations in spacetime during the heat death of the universe via Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems (Yes, I'm pulling rubbish out of my ass, you get the point), by any chance? I think clarification is needed here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The fourth dimension is time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.65.6 (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this means that they mapped it physically, but they also had a schedule worked out--Occupant 6 leaves to get a haircut every Thursday at 2 p.m., Occupants 10 and 11takes a walk daily at 6 a.m., the chickens are put in the henhouse at 5 p.m., Friday is Scrabble night, etc. jengod (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Distance from military academy

This is now being cited as half a mile. But I suspect it's closer to 1.5mi To clarify, what is the location of this academy? Is it not this one? According to my measures it is 1.5 miles from the compound —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummih (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference was to Pakistan Military Academy. It is difficult to say exactly how far it is, as the academy spans for almost a mile. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Earth and my own thumbnails, it looks to be ~1 mile "as the crow flies" from the compound to the PMA Drill Yard. 146.201.16.50 (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, doesn't the Pakistan Military Academy area end near the Narrian Graveyeard That would make it roughly 1 mile away from the compound. When speaking about an area, it makes a lot of difference if the area is doubled in radius. if we're talking about 0.5mi then the area is roughly 0.75square miles. But if we're talking about a radius of 1mile then the corresponding area would be 3.14square miles (four times larger). gummih (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No! According to Wikipedia the Pakistan Military Academy is located 1 km north-east of the bin Ladens. The graveyard is 1 mile south-west. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden died in 2001. he never went anywhere near Abbottabad, especially not in 2011. This article makes Wikipedia look like a Zionist propaganda outfit. Oh wait .... 86.136.207.220 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Appear to be off. I was able to find the structures shown in the photograph after searching Google Earth for some time, using the given coordinates as a starting point. The proper coordinates are 34°10'9.51"N 73°14'32.78"E The coordinates given in the article are ~.4 miles NNW of the compound. I will attempt to change, but my tech ability with boxes and whatnot is limited.146.201.16.50 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

fixt146.201.16.50 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The coordinates appear to be correct now, after a few edits by various persons, myself included; but it is the Geohack link to GE which takes the user to a location 646m NNW (335 deg azimuth from compound; likewise I spent some time scouring GE to locate it. I think it is only the placemark that Geohack links to that is wrong, nothing on wikipedia. AStephenGray (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The coordinates when I started here a few days ago were incorrect. I visually matched a GE location with the satellite image of the compound and substituted the proper coordinates in. I'll need to see if subsequent edits have changed back to the original Geohack link that was in the 646m NNW location as you noted. I sure hope no one re-edited the inaccurate coordinates in.146.201.16.50 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The coordinates are back to the original incorrect location ~646m NNW of the compound. Will correct again.146.201.16.50 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, 34°10'9.51"N 73°14'32.78"E is the precise location of the compound, not 34°10'9"N 73°14'33"E. Please stop reverting to the inaccurate coordinates.146.201.16.50 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea how to appease the GeoHack pixies, though.146.201.16.50 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Year

If it was built in 2005 how could it have been occupied in 2003??♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

another pakistani bluff?--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

One more detail

I swear I read somewhere yesterday or saw yesterday that the compound had a separate gas and/or electricity supply and was not connected to the Bilal Town grid. If someone else can find that info (Google News search is failing me), I think it would be a worthwhile addition to the article. jengod (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Source needed. I've seen a source indicate that the local grid was shut down during the US operation and then turned back on. Presumably the grid operator would not do this, or be instructed to do this, if the compound was off the grid.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's too big of an assumption. If I were planning this operation, I'd want the electric grid and communications shut down to hinder summoning and deploying a quick reaction force against operation. Furthermore, bright lights play havoc with night vision devices, and I'd prefer a one-sided engagement where I could see the enemy but the enemy couldn't see me. Rklawton (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Here is one useful source:

• Jamal, Arif (May 5, 2011). "Bin Laden's Neighbors Say Compound Was Under Surveillance Since 2005". Terrorism Monitor. 9 (18). Jamestown Foundation.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbottābad or Abbottabad

I suggest the macron be removed for consistency with use in Death of Osama bin Laden and Abbottabad. It was discussed at Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 2#Abbottābad vs Abbottabad. Nurg (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Units

An effort should be made to add the convert template (cf. Template:convert) for every unit in this article. In addition, editors should particularly find sources which use metrics units first (e.g. international BBC and other non-US trusted sources) since only the US doesn't use metric units: our international audience appreciates these two simple recommendations.

Thanks.

Xionbox^₪ 14:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this of interest?

After satellite photos of the compound were released to the media on 2 May, JSS News noted the similarity of the shape of the compound to the map of Israel. Superimposing the map on the compound, the news service opined that the main house where bin Laden and his wives lived was located in the same place as Jerusalem on the Israeli map, and other structures paralleled the location of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Tiberias.

Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad → Waziristan Haveli – For the same reason the Neverland Ranch article is not called "Michael Jackson's private theme park in California", and the Buckingham Palace article is not called "The British monarch's palace in London". The title should be the compound's name, not a description of it. -- Smurfy 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Y I agree. Xionbox^₪ 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Google search, Osama bin Laden's compound many many times more hits (20 million) than Wazirstan Haveli (147,000) which is only a locally known name, not its official name. A comparison to Michael Jackson's Neverneverland is redundant. We should go by the title which is mostly widely used in sources and as google search shows, Osama bin Laden's compound has like 200 times more hits. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I doubt if this place will ever become widely known by the proposed new name internationally, unlike Neverland and Buckingham Palace, which a lot of people have heard of, and in the latter case has been an important building long before the present Queen. PatGallacher (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The compound is not actually in Waziristan, to add extra confusion. A ref to the BBC claims this is the name used locally, ie was before the raid, but no doubt they will be soon or already referring to it with some variation of the bin Laden name, like the rest of the world. Revist in a year's time, in the unlikely event this name catches on. The mere fact that the proposed name exists was used as the DYK hook for this article, which shows why it is wrong! Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplication

Why is there so much duplication with the death of bin Laden article? That section should be reduced to a minimum summary. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Geo Hack points to 34°10'9"N 73°14'33"E; however, 34°10'9.51"N 73°14'32.78"E is the precise location of the compound.

I edited the correct coordinates in, but the GE .kml file still points to the wrong coordinates. I;m not sure how to fix it.

article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden%27s_compound_in_Abbottabad geohack: http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Osama_bin_Laden%27s_compound_in_Abbottabad&params=34_10_9.51_N_73_14_32.78_E_region:PK-NW_type:landmark

—146.201.16.50 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Declined — The problem is not with Wikipedia or GeoHack, but is a known problem inside Google which sometimes occurs with Google Maps and Google Earth even when correct coordinates are provided are provided from Wikipedia/GeoHack. The last time I looked into it the consensus was that the problem is not fixable from within Wikipedia/GeoHack. Just a tip: If you'll click the Google Earth "w/ meta data" link in GeoHack instead of the regular link it will nearly always take you to the right place, as it does in this case. Moreover, if you'll use one of the non-Google map sources — Acme and Wikimapia are particularly good — they don't suffer from this problem, even if they rely on Google for their data. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Porn

CNN said they found porn in his compound:

• "Porn found in Osama bin Laden's compound." CNN. May 13, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like CIA propaganda to defame him and his reputation in front of his hardcore "possible" followers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bin Laden sympathiser. I just think though that it could be a clever ploy.....

Source is too vague to be mentioned I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Officials of the government of the United States who are supposedly leaking this information cannot be considered a reliable source for this information nor can articles in their usual mouthpieces such as The New York Times that are based on it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now the porn is mentioned in "Death Of." I propose that it's more appropriately included here, where you already have a list of the medicines and other items found in the compound. Brmull (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are lot of sources for the porn issue. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also aphrodisiac is found in his compound. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Now Avena sativa syrup doesn't sound as sexy as 'oats extract'... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the source for all of them is officials of the United States government who have "leaked" it to them. This information belongs in an article about the war on terror, not here. Releasing the information is part of the war. That we know happened; we have a reliable source for that. We don't have a reliable source that porn was found in the compound. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this porn stash[[1]]? By any account it was real, but yes it could have been plantd by the team.82.2.67.191 (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How is the porn more appropriate in the Death of article as opposed to here? O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't. Frankly, trivia like this isn't worth having in either article, but if it needs to go anywhere, here is more logical, given that there is no evidence that Osama was aware of its existence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why Brmull though it was. I agree that it's garbage that shouldn't be included here. If you look back at the related discussion, I compared it to another notable story and noted that that story had not been included in the pages of either of the relevant personalities (even though it was of course widely-reported). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I completely misread that here in Brmull's comment as there, lol. I really need to get this astigmatism checked out. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see no reason whey it can't be mentioned in this article, provided it is couched in similar terms as the Indie's article, and that the 'find' is attributed to US Government sources. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rescued comments wiped from 'Death of Ossam bin Laden' page

Propaganda and possibly faked pornography

This is not a forum for speculation

It could have been put there by the special opp’s team to damage Ossie’s reputation in the Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC) It could be part of a VERY ESTUTE covert smear campaign by portraying Ossie as a supposed pervert to undermine his credibility in Pakistan, if not the entire Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Do you mean this porn stash[[2]]? By any account it was real, but yes it could have been planted by the team.82.2.67.191 (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Heyhoe, more tactics?....213.81.118.99 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I rescued this!213.81.118.99 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Chak Shah Muhammad"

Does anyone know how to retitle an article? The above article was evidently created from this page. The full name of the village is actually "Chak Shah Mohammad Khan." Chak Shah Mohammad should be a redirect, as should the Arab transliterations with the spelling Muhammad. Please change or let me know how to do it. (In case you're curious Chak means village, Shah Mohammad is the founder, and Khan is the family that currently owns it.) Brmull (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Satellite Dish

The diagram of the compound shows a large satellite dish on a small structure in front of the main building. The dish is pointed horizontally. Is there any information on what this dish was for? (There's also a smaller one on the building in front of that.) QuentinUK (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of content

The section about Operation Neptune Spear could be heavily trimmed or even eliminated entirely. We should not duplicate content in this article, but should instead rely on Wikilinks so that there is a single most up-to-date, factually accurate, and well-written account of the events surrounding his death. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Error in Units

The page says the compound is 38,000 square feet, that's like the size of a dunkin doughnuts regional supply warehouse, which it is obviously not. The correct number might be 3,800 sq ft but certainly not 38,000. Even 3,800 seems like a lot though, I would estimate it to be in the 2,800-3,000 even territory I think this number should be verified again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.207.10 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

-Emoticon July 5, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.207.10 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Image

The photograph may well have been found on Flicker, but that doesn't mean it's a free image. Indeed the image used here is a widely distributed press picture. Not free. That someone has put it on Flicker and marked it with a CC licence is meaningless. It's a picture taken by a press photographer, and almost without question does not legitimately have a CC licence. Not free. Johnny Squeaky (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I contacted the owner himself and he's a Pakistani journalist who was there and took the photographs. He sold some of his photos but permitted two images for use on wikipedia. I asked him to change the license myself on flickr. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible Images

Here are some images said to be from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Public Domain? => http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/11738144-pentagon-unveils-scale-model-of-bin-laden-compound =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Says via AP so no, sadly not, interesting video though, just watched it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)