Talk:Osama bin Laden tapes

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS but there were more keeps than deletes

Quotations intertwined with random and rambling snippets of commentary. This looks like someone's personal essay should not pass for an encyclopedia article. --Jiang 08:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do with this. Is there stuff about this elsewhere that is a better encyclopedic look at the tapes? Weak keep with need for cleanup for now. —siroχo 10:13, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Siroxo. Weak keep. --positron 13:03, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
• Close, but weak delete: First, "Osama tapes?" Is he doing a one-man show off Broadway now like "The Vagina Monologues" or "Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll?" Second, the essay part of the article only seeks to establish that bin Laden didn't attack because they "hate freedom." Well, yes, but do educated people need that pointed out? Third, the establishment of a long tradition of tapes is done in other articles. Geogre 12:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Precisely why I give it a weak keep, its not a good, but I don't know where to put the useful parts. Tell me where and I'll agree it should be deleted. —siroχo 08:58, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
• agree with Geogre, delete. Some snippets may be saved for other articles, but the entire thing in an essay, and "Osama tapes" is a silly title.
  dab
  13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original composition. --Improv 20:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. This article's text was created by direct cut and paste edit from
  Al-Qaida, and Osama bin Laden to the Wikisource texts of al-Qaida video and audio communications. --Alberuni
  21:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Geogre and Improv. Jayjg 03:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Rename it something better if 'tapes' isn't good enough, but if his tapes can stirr the election in the richest country in the world, i'd say that is notible. Perhaps Osama Bin Laden public tapes, or a less POV Osama Bin Laden propaganda tapes. Here is a list of words that maybe less POV for propaganda, I took a look and haven't seen any though. --ShaunMacPherson 22:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve.
  Gerritholl
  22:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, e.g. by adding information about the audio tapes of Osama's sermons that al Qaeda distributes. Gazpacho 06:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The subject itself is extremely encyclopedic and highly notable. If you disagree with the neutrality of certain parts, then weigh in with your contributions, don't just wish it away. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • no comment was made on neutrality, but a comment was made on the quality of the article. there could be an article, but as the article stands, it is useless and of no value. --Jiang 04:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and edit/improve/refine. Wikipedia is a "free as in freedom" encyclopedia. Deletion is censorship. Thoric 16:00, 03 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thoric, you should create an account. Anonymous votes are usually disregarded. Thanks. --Alberuni 21:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I did :) Thoric 18:24, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • User's 9th and final edit. Possible sock puppet vote--Jiang 04:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am not a "sock puppet" --Thoric 22:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think he's a sock puppet. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it just needs cleaning up. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion --

14:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Images

I don't think the two images of WTC rubble are particularly relevent to this article, at least not relevent enough to merit two images with full captions. I've replaced one of them with a picture of Osama Bin Ladin. Are there any screen captures of bin ladin from one of these video tapes? That would be even better... - jiy 12:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of the 'fat black guy' Osama? That was an obvious hoax by anybody's standards.

Sukiari 03:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So a videotape apparently showing bin Laden who appears to take credit for the attacks, but who unequivocally condemns Bush and clearly presents the attacks as revenge for US misdeeds. Do you find anything at all slanted about that presentation? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the transcript? He does not explicitly take credit for the attack, there is just an oblique reference to "the towers" and that he got the idea to attack them in 1982 or whatever. The video only "apparently" shows bin Laden - since many people who watched it thought it was not quite clear that it actually did, and to my knowledge it has not been verified that it is bin Laden (if such a thing is even possible). That the speaker - bin Laden or whoever it is - very explicitly attacks US misdeeds is undeniable and clear, though. Rkrichbaum 21:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely: "... I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken ... as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America ..." So 24 years ago he "decided" that "towers in America" should be destroyed, and later (Atta was only 14 at the time of the decision, after all) he agreed with the "commander" Atta that the attacks should be carried out within 20 Minutes. This does not read like he literally was the mastermind and "takes credit", but I agree that one could interpret it this way. Therefore I think the best way to put it is "he appears to take credit" for the idea. Rkrichbaum 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another: "The Taliban leaders' refusal to comply with U.S. government demands gave the U.S. government a pretext for launching an invasion of Afghanistan on 7 October, 2001." If that was the pretext, what was the real reason? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my text, I simply let it stand. Personally, I think it was a pretext, but it would certainly be more neutral to state: "The Taliban leaders' refusal to comply with U.S. government demands was the stated reason by the U.S. government to launch an invasion of Afghanistan on 7 October, 2001." Better still to have a source for the reason given. Almost all of the statements in the first part are unsourced, unfortunately. If I have time I will try and find some. Rkrichbaum 21:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to let you do what you think is right. I'd like to see how you develop the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]