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

This is an archive of past discussions about Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

Coordinates

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)