Talk:Osama bin Laden killed in U.S. operation in Pakistan, White House says

• "[1]" — 
• "[2]" — 
• "[3]" — 
• "[4]" — 
• "[5]" — 
• "[6]" — 

Review of revision 1224881 [Passed]

Revision 1224881 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Close enough for government work. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1224881 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Close enough for government work. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Last Week?

Instead of saying "Died Last Week" I think we should put the date of his death in the article... "Died Sunday, May 1st 2011". I understand that technically yesterday was last week, but saying last week makes it sound like it was farther back in time then it really was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.76.242.155 (talk • contribs)

He died ~2 May local time. —fetch·comms 14:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Reactions

I'm tempted to start a new article, something like World reacts to death of Osama bin Laden, and keep this one focused on emerging details of the operation, intelligence etc. Otherwise this risks being overwhelmed with quotes from every world leader. Anyone agree? the wub "?!" 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, although I would keep some reactions in the main article. This may be useful for finding sources. wackywace 10:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we not just section it off? — μchip08 10:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And add more sources to this article? It has a ridiculous amount already. wackywace 10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly I think we should keep some prominent comments in this article, in fact the ones we have at the moment generally seem fine (thoough I might cut Jerzy Buzek). A separate article though would make sourcing easier, and help to reduce edit conflicts. the wub "?!" 10:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add [[hu:Amerikai rajtaütésben megölték Oszáma bin Ládent]]. Thank you. - Xbspiro (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, pending reflag. — μchip08 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, refuse to sight that. I'm getting fed up of people leaving trivial things for others to sight, increasing the queue of items needing reviewer attention. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed syntax error and sighted. I am not picky about translating an interwiki to be sure it links to the same development of the same story: the same general story and I will link. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)