Talk:Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Merge Proposal?[edit]

Someone put a merge tag with Benazir Bhutto at the top of this page but refrained from leaving any reason for doing so. I can't see any reason these articles should/could be merged (this article functions just like any breakout section), so if nobody supports this or can explain this, it should be removed. Joshdboz (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

it`s no need to merging. both of articles are too long. noneed puting the merg box is vandalism, plz remove that.--Gordafarid (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Refuted" in Lead[edit]

When we say that "Bhutto's aides have refuted this version" of her death (i.e., hitting the sunroof), it seems (to me at least) a bit problematic. "Refuted" implies that her aides have demonstrated that she did not die as a result of hitting the sunroof, but when I read the linked article, it sounds more like they angrily claimed this, rather than actually proving it. I think it should be changed to "denied this claim" or something to that effect, but I thought I should post here before changing it. dcd139 (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "rejected" as that was the word used in the article the ref linked to. Joshdboz (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

name of article[edit]

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is correst or Benazir Bhutto Assassination ?? if first is correct plz do edition to all realted articles like John F. Kennedy assassination and ... . else plz edit the name of article to correct name. regards,--Gordafarid (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This conversation occurred earlier on this page under Title with consensus and precedent in other articles leading towards the current title. However, it would seem that no rules really exist at this time. As such, I would respect consensus and leave the title as is. SorryGuy  Talk  08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I saw, I noticed that assassination articles appeared to tend towards having the assassinee's name first, followed by "assassination". I am not sure where the pages regarding "assassination of" are. Thus, I changed the title. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian/Kevin Rudd response[edit]

As an Australian, it was good to see his comments listed on this page. Now they're gone. Why is that? Not happy at all. Timeshift (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem general consensus above was that only the countries which were judged to be most "important" stayed on this article and the rest are on the reaction main article. SorryGuy  Talk  08:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly as I thought. Typical. Timeshift (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you propose? We include this whole very long page International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in this article? Or we include nothing at all in this article? While I don't see our current format as ideal (see above for my suggestions), it's definitely better then either of the alternatives I suggested and nothing I envision sees Australia's comments coming back here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Timeshift. Australia has troops in neighbouring Afghanistan so that should be good enough. However, most of you seem to loose sight of what the ENGLISH wikipedia is about. It's for English-speaking people, and that includes the people of Australia. Why shouldn't Australians, as one of the major English-speaking Wikipedia user groups, have the response of their prime minister on the main page? Arguably countries such as Russia and other non-english speaking countries should be relegated to the subsidiary article, with the main article being kept for comments from the english-speaking world together with those of adjacnt countries. As for the concept of "important" countries, it's laughable. I propose putting the AUS response back. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Really now, what has Aussies gotta do with this? Ireland is an English-speaking country too, we must include them! LOL. --Howard the Duck 12:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Read my rationale. The Irish readers of the English Wikipedia would be interested in the response of their government. I already told you what "Aussies" have got to do with this - they have troops in Afghanistan. FFS. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
English Wikipedia means that we use English terms, not English POV. We can certainly debate which countries'/groups' reactions should go on this page, or if we should remove them all. However, if troops in Afghanistan was the criteria we'd have to add a half-dozen more reactions, which isn't exactly feasible due to space constraints. Joshdboz (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
{Edit conflict) So what? I suppose several other countries also have troops in Afghanistan (this was before the invasion of Iraq before the world got pissed with the U.S.), we gotta include them too.
If Pakistan was in the South Pacific, Aussie reaction will be appropriate. In South Asia were they don't have anything to lose in the long-term, it's better if they're left out. Don't worry, Aussie reaction is perfectly appropriate for the 2000 Fijian coup d'état article, but for this article, no. --Howard the Duck 12:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm Australian, I voted Labor and I don't think Rudd's comments should be reported here. Frankly, he's just not that important on the world stage. His comments are in International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and that's just fine with me. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
As an Australian, frankly I am a bit embarrassed by the fuss shared by some of my compatriots who think we are the centre of the world's attention, and therefore Kevin's comments should be included in a limited list of world leader reactions. Rather, only the comments of statespersons from countries that count should be included, i.e. the permanent UNSC members and any other important states like Iran, India and Afghanistan (our deployment of a relatively small force in Afghanistan doesn't qualify). If anybody came out celebrating the assassination of BB, then that should be included too. Most English speakers care more about the views of those who have important or fragile relationships with Pakistan, and not what language they speak. Note Wikipedia conventions on a worldwide view. Kransky (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - as an Australian one would expect to see Bush, Brown, Putin, Karzai, a representative from China and Manmohan Singh or representatives from India for international reaction in the main article. All of those have reasons to be there, and important ones. All others can go in the sub-article. Orderinchaos 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Josh, I don't see what POV has got to do with this. English Wikipedia is there for the benefit of English-speaking people and those people are naturally going to be interested in the response of their own government. Now I'm not suggesting that the responses of Russia or China should be removed from the main article (maybe France should be included) but I think the present selection of countries leaves a lot to be desired. This sort of thing is only going to wind people up, so we should be very careful about it. Many of the countries you refer to with troops in Afghanistan can be covered by the EU response, but Australia perhaps could be included since it's not covered by a similar international organisation. For the record, I'm from the UK. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not a Commonwealth response? Pakistan, the UK and Australia are members of the Commonwealth, if there's a Commonwealth response we can add it and do away with the Aussie response... which brings me too, how about NZ response? And PNG, Fiji, Samoa, the entire South Pacific, heck the entire Southern Hemisphere. --Howard the Duck 12:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(a)"people are naturally going to be interested in the response of their own government" ... please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systematic_bias. (b) There has been no joint Commonwealth response, nor is the Commonwealth really relevant in Australian foreign policy, and nor do states condemn the obvious through mutual consultation (I think you subconsciously mean Old Commonwealth). Kransky (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually there has been a Commonwealth response. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that is a response from the Commonwealth Secretariat. It need not have the endorsement of its member states. Putting the Commonwealth statement in and saying it represents Australia, UK, Canada etc. is incorrect, even if they share the same sentiments. Kransky (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an idea, but Pakistan was actually suspended from the Commonwealth several weeks ago because Musharraf instituted emergency rule. Joshdboz (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes, why not a Commonwealth response (only joking). I've suddenly lost interest in this issue having realised a golden opportunity here - a new policy! Yes, another Wikipedia policy, since we haven't got enough of 'em yet! Don't tell me - there already is one? Well if not, if off to the Wikipedia Policy Bureau to set one up. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If we'd follow 86's comments, then perhaps the reactions of the Philippine president should be added -- it has tons more English speakers than Australia and Ireland combined, and Bhutto and Arroyo were both women, if sex counts. --Howard the Duck 15:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There are way too many English speaking countries for it to be a viable option to include them all. Current countries listed at the main article include Canada, Belize, Liberia, South Africa, The Bahamas, Jamaica, Uganda, Malta, Fiji, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Federated States of Micronesia. Australia have a lot of troops in Afghanistan might be an argument, but so do France, Spain, Netherlands, and a good deal of others. Can you state unequivocally that Australia has more influence in Pakistan than any other country not listed, or more than any country that is listed? The only one I'm not sure about is UK; they might be part of the commonwealth, but Pakistan is not like India in that it has strayed quite far from Britain politically and culturally. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of the section?[edit]

We have a separate page on International reactions to the Assassination and just a link on that should be good enough. The problem is that, some editors might push for their nation's reactions. For example, in my opinion, Iran has greater influence in Pakistan than Russia yet we have Russia's reaction and not of Iran's. And why do we have UK's reaction when EU's reaction is mentioned? UK's reaction gets more emphasis than other prominent members of EU like France and Germany? One must consider that UK doesn't have much influence in Pakistan anymore and EU's comments should be good enough. And why do we have Bangladesh's reaction? Agreed, the country was a part of Pakistan before, but what is the connection between Bangladesh and Benazir Bhutto's assassination. One can understand the inclusion of India's remarks (she has and could have played a crucial role in Kashmir dispute and Indo-Pak relations in general) and that of Afghanistan's (the conflict there is one of the reasons for the turmoil in Pakistan), but Bangladesh? Frankly, it is sad that this entire topic has come up (because these reactions are of little significance.. every leader will be like she did this.. she did that.. blah blah blah.. and we highly condemn the attack) and I just wanted to express my views. Thanks --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we are going to get rid of the section, almost all similar articles have these sections and a main article with more. If you want to debate which to include, we can do so here. I would support adding Iran, as you have said. However, I can not endorse cutting the entire section. SorryGuy  Talk  21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I would support Iran as it seems to be the last major regional neighbor not included (after Afghanistan, India, China, and Bangladesh). I think that should be the limit though. Joshdboz (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa[edit]

I forgot to add this page to my watchlist... I didn't realise how big an issue this would become. I didn't see International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the fact a much larger variety of responses are on there including Australia satisfies me. And frankly, i'm embarrassed by the Australian who couldn't keep his comments to himself earlier. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry about it. Joshdboz (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorism"[edit]

While it stands to reason that the perpetrators of this killing are also involved in terrorism, it should be noted that an assassination does not qualify as a "terrorist attack". The UN definition makes this explicit:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. (my emphasis)

assassinations are thus a form of violence that contrast with terrorism, they cannot be taken to be included under the term. Please be more careful with throwing around the term "terrorism" on Wikipedia. This is just a note on terminology, I do not mean to imply that by not qualifying as "terrorism" this attack is any less despicable. dab (𒁳) 15:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would imagine that the suicide bombing which killed 20+ bystanders could be qualified as such. Joshdboz (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
not necessarily. If the intention of the attack was to kill Bhutto, these may be calculated, but not aimed for, "collateral damage". If you count this as terrorism, it will be difficult to find any military operation that doesn't qualify as "terrorism" on exactly the same grounds. "Terrorism" is a loaded term, and is being used for propaganda purposes by the US government. Because of this, there has been a lot of debate on its use on Wikipedia over the past four years. Unless an incident clearly falls under terrorism, it should not be so called in Wikipedia's voice. Quoting other people calling things terrorism is another matter entirely of course, but I am here referring to the use of Wikipedia's "war on terrorism" templates and categories. dab (𒁳) 15:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly part of the war on terror, thats why the templates should be on the page. (Hypnosadist) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with dab. The motive for the bombing does not seem to be clear at this point and I don't think it would be accurate to say "terrorism" was it. Putting it in the War on Terror(ism) also does not appear to be a clear-cut good decision. -- tariqabjotu 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't need the exact motive, it does not matter if she was killed by Musharaf or Bin Laden, its obviously part of the ongoing conflict. But this is not about "terrorism" its about the "war on terrorism" templates which include Criticism of the War on Terrorism and NSA electronic surveillance program both of which arn't terrorist attacks and thier presence on the template does not claim they are. (Hypnosadist) 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
True, I have worked to minimize the word in plenty of arab-israeli articles. But as it stands now in this article, the word or variations of it is only used in quotes of other people, which is appropriate if sourced. The only debate is then whether it should be categorized as a terrorist incident. Joshdboz (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I might point out that I have heard the word plenty often in this kind of context (e.g., when people involved in anti-corporation violence in 19th century America attacked Andrew Carnegie, I believe it was). The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course the event is not, at this early juncture, known to have been "terrorism" in a literal or Wikipedia sense; but that doesn't matter in an Orwellian world where an event is terrorism simply because the most powerful political leaders declare it to be and reliable major media sources mimic that declaration. So, don't waste your time kicking a dead horse. Bush and Brown say it's terrorism so that's what it is. In reference to Evil Spartan's comment, the nazis referred to the Dutch and French resistance fighters during WW2 as "terrorists" as well; and when, if ever, has anyone used the term "resistance" in relation to the Afghan or Iraqi "insurgency"? These word games are absolutely nothing new and it does not appear that even Wikipedia's stated NPOV policy can compensate for the overwhelming and blatant pov inherent in the application of "war on terror" terminology in 2007. At least that's my read on the matter. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, the responsibility section shows there is no clear consensus as to the motives of the attacker(s) so it is not rational to assume that the event is clearly part of the war on terror; other options are the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence theory suggested by MI5 [1] , a person with obscure Sirhan Sirhan type motives, a power grab within her own party, or the use of a dupe by people who might want an expanding conflict in that part of the world for personal profit; bottom line is, who the hell knows at this point in time whether the assassination is related at all to the "war on terror". I'll remove the template until there is a consensus that it does belong. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"War on Terrorism" is a propaganda term of the US government. Having a "War on Terrorism" template following terminology and diction of one side in an armed conflict clearly violates NPOV. We might as well rename the template to "Holy War on the Great Devil America". This assassination (hopefully) wasn't an US military operation, so I fail to see what it has got to do with the US "War on Terrorism". Try to take a step back and report on things neutrally. This is an incident of Pakistani politics, not part of any US campaign. dab (𒁳) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "War on Terror" is a subset of the ongoing conflict between militant Christianity and militant Islam that dates back hundreds of years. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A) As per dab's quote from above, an assassination is not a terrorist attack. B) If the U.S. government used the phrase "Holy War on the Great Devil America" then we would use it, but the U.S. government has not used that phrase. The War on Terrorism is the name given by the U.S. government for its campaign of military involvement against particular defined enemies. Therefore, it is not POV to use the template. Kingturtle (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

um, this is what I'm saying: obviously the US govenment doesn't call the conflict "Holy War on the Great Devil America". The opposite side in the conflict does. So how is it NPOV to refer to a conflict by the terminology issued by one side of combattants? Thus, if the term is strictly a (sigh) military codename for an US "campaign of military involvement against particular defined enemies", how does this article bear any relation to it? The assassinaiton of Bhutto is hardly part of US "military involvement against particular defined enemies"? dab (𒁳) 13:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone were to create categories and templates called "Holy War on the Great Devil America", I don't think that would be wrong. The more indexing opportunities for users, the better. No?
As for Pakistan and the War on Terror, the relationship between the two exists. There is no question that Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan bled into Pakistan long ago, and one has to wonder if Benazir Bhutto would have been assassinated had the U.S. War on Terror not been going on. Kingturtle (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not have to wonder that at all. There have been ongoing political assassinations and attempts in Pakistan for a long,long time; long before the U.S. War on Terror. The logic of assuming a WOT connection eludes me, the same as would the logic of assuming the Bhutto assassination is connected to the 2008 US presidential caucus voting in Iowa (tomorrow I think); even though pundits say the assassination helps Clinton and Giuliani. Timing parrallels are not the best method of assessing probabilities and "one has to wonder" :) whether the WOT connection would have even been thought of if this killing happened back in 2002. The main reason the connection is being made now (by a few) is because of recent western media attention to Pakistani politics. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is too early to assume a WOT connection since it is uncertain who did it. If the assassins' long-term objective is to obtain nukes for al-Qaeda, by instituting a coup in Pakistan, then it's definitely part of the WOT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan is one of the rings of the three-ring circus called the War on Terror. Kingturtle (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to be confused with the "Axis of Evil". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Controversies" section[edit]

I have removed this section [2] due to the lack of sourcing; hence the edits are controversial. Please refrain from adding such commentary without providing a reference from a reliable source. Once the "controversies" are properly sourced, I will leave it to editorial discretion as to whether or not this section or the specific controversial issue should be re-added. Risker (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Josh removed it earlier as well and I supported its removal. Even with sourcing, I think it is better to include the information in it into other sections of the article. SorryGuy  Talk  21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The responsibilities section was retitled as controversies. I changed it back, but wanted to make sure everyone else supports responsibilities as the preferred section title. SorryGuy  Talk  23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's fine for me, since the section deals with who claims responsibility for the attack. "Controversies" would be about the conflicting reports about cause of death which are going onnow. Perhaps that can be a new section or sub-section later. Ekantik talk 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also re-arranged the paragraph to reflect the fact that the Mark Siegel email was reported first, before all the claims of Al-qaeda, Baitullah Mehsud and what-have-you. I appreciate that there is confusion in Pakistan and confusion among journalistic sources but we must try to maintain some kind of order of events if possible, so that the article will be easier to edit once things have calmed down. Ekantik talk 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stunning evidence shown by CNN! And Taliban saying[edit]

According to CNN a gunman was shooting right back at her and then blew him self up, they have got live footage showing that on CNN.

Osama bin laden has said that they do not KILL womans and wer not behind this but the Army of pakistan was, now that is not evidence but the PK gov has no evidence on osama bin laden and/or al-qaeda - Al Jazeera. I'll get up a link later --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I can't find CNN video nor info that bin Laden spoke of the incident. Joshdboz (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What? BoL 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Bin laden said that on CNN, nor is it online, it was on tv. Not the binladen part, that was on al jazeera I think.. Checking it. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Times of India has an article on this. Also have a look at this. Thanks --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
According to CNN (and The Associated Press), Bin Laden did not mention Pakistan nor Bhutto's death in the tape released today. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/29/binladen.message.ap/index.html) --Mhking (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but it was Taliban saying that.. I'm sure I remember Osama saying it but.. Not looking for that now here is the info: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3DFBFF6A-8916-4F25-8EC3-B3D695365371.htm

and thanks to Mellisa for the link too :] --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just looked it up on their home page. BoL 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent pics! Now the only question is whether we can use them per fair use. Certainly they're non-replaceable. Joshdboz (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at this video clip which shows gun fires before the blast. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you again Mellisa, exactly what I saw on CNN we need to get this on the wiki right away, can't the picture go under fair use?

Claiming a screenshot for fairuse might be easier than the stills of the gunman, although there is no chance that any of this will become free before the copyright expiration. Joshdboz (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I doubt that site had got the pictures by them self. Probably from a channel where the video has been shared to other tv station would be the only legal way if you ask me. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the footage on CNN, and it was much clearer on my TV. They are working on using the tapes and photos to aid in the investigation. The Pak. gov blames the taliban or bin laden claiming they intercepted a phone message, but they only provided a transcript, not a recording. So, it's to be taken with a big grain of salt until they can produce a recording of the call that was reported to have been made. Sheesh, you can see the gun actually being fired...but the people and signs blocked the view of it hitting Bhutto. :( I agree with Joshdboz about the stills of the "gunman" standing in the crowd with the sunglasses on, as it is only assumed it was indeed the gunman - at this time, anyways. BBhounder (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew I was right.. Al-qaeda is deny it too, thanks Mel for saving me :]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Al-Qaida_leader_Mehsud_denies_killing_Bhutto/articleshow/2660344.cms --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/29/welcome.htm showing Sherry Rehman, a close aide to Benazir Bhutto and also her spokeswoman giving SHOCKING and evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanonkas (talkcontribs) 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318993,00.html

http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/steve_foley/2007/dec/29/bhuttos_assassin_caught_on_tape

But can anyone give us closer pictures, like when he is near and is shooting and off course when he blew up. Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge of international reaction[edit]

I think the article International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto should be summarized and merged to this one. I don't think it is neccesary to list every country's reaction separately when they can be summarized. Basically everyone expressed condolances and rejected violence, and this is said in the article like 100 times. besides, it becomes hard to read. Opinions? --Tone 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. To put everyone's ideas together into one passage does not sound possible, how are you going to find a reference that says them all together? See WP:SYNTH. Also see WP:SS on using sub-articles to ensure the main articles do not become too long. Frankly, it has to stay the way it is to ensure that people are not upset that their country is not listed. There is also precedent for these sorts of lists, see other major events that require international reaction. SorryGuy  Talk  22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, to ensure that people are not upset that their country is not listed is not really the argument I would favour. What about summarizing in a way several countries have expressed condolances, including this one (ref), this (ref), this (ref), and that one also (ref)? I don't remember separate articles for international reactions for events like this, can you pinpoint the precedent for me? Frankly, I don't object to the whole article strongly, I am just trying to see if an improvement can be done. --Tone 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no point deleteing sourced factual information. (Hypnosadist) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess are correct about that argument, it is just that if you look above you will see we have already had issues. As for precedent done in a similar manner that I remember from recently see International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test and International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War. SorryGuy  Talk  22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
And also International reaction to the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency. I see these pages as a real plus for Wikipedia, using the power of the Internet to bring together comprehensive world opinions in a single summary. Strong keep. WWGB (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's say you convinced me. After all, we have place and the info is of a certain degree of importance. Removing proposal. --Tone 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From an editorial standpoint a summary would achieve the same aim and is likely what would be done in Britannica, but this is notable and verifiable information so there's no real reason to get rid of the separate article. Joshdboz (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree whole-heartedly. I was around when we were proposing the article in the first place, and there is way too much information in that article to fit here. This article is already getting long. It is notable and encyclopedic. If you believe it's not, try AFD. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep them separate. They contain different information, and are each quite large. Kingturtle (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassin images[edit]

I've managed to find 2 images of the assassin that have been uploaded under a non-free/fair-use rationale. Check it out: Image:Bhutto_assassin_1.jpg Image:Bhutto_assasin_2.jpg
Ekantik talk 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean we should get of the suicide bomber too I can't see the white guy with the turban their, could you please get them both? Thanks Eki --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lousy international section[edit]

OK, I propose an overhaul of this section on a few accounts.

  1. We get rid of the flags. They're of questionable encyclopedic value anyway, and it's only causing silly nationalistic disputes, with everybody and his brother coming along and trying to add his own country and feel a swell of pride in his heart. We can accomplish just as much content without the flags, and it's flagcruft, the kind that would never be in most encyclopedias.
  2. We rewrite it in prose. Is there any reason we can't just restate it as "it was universally condemned by interntional organizations from the UN to the Muslim League [or whatever it's called in here]. India, Pakistan's main rival...... The only organization that did not condemn the act was Al-Qaeda, who was the purpetrator (sp)". There is no reason to mention anyone else, and certainly not with these dumb flags (trust me, they cause useless disputes all over Wikipedia). The "internationally condemned" section will cover the responses of Bangladesh, US, Russia, and everyone else just fine. And it's not like they said anything differently between them, so a summary will be easier to read.

Thought? If people reject the second proposal, I still suggest the first. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with the second proposal as the tendency has been to reduce this section anyways, and the same was done in 2007 Pakistani state of emergency (although to a bit too great degree). This would not necessarily solve the dispute over which groups should be specifically mentioned, but I think it could keep most of those listed now if quotes are removed and everything is summarized. However, as I stated in another section above, I see nothing wrong with flags, for the current form is a list and they do aid scanning, which is their purpose. When has a flag of a nation become unencyclopedic?! I am also going to assume reasonableness on the part of fellow editors, mainly that a 20px flag is not what is prompting them to argue for the inclusion of a certain nation. Joshdboz (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Joshdboz -- I think the second proposal would be prudent, what with the comprehensive international reactions article existing and being actively edited. Trim it down to a few sentences here about unanimous international condemnation but for the al-Qaeda statement(s) in support, leave the link to the main article on international reactions, and that's that. However, in the event we don't go with the second proposal, I agree with Joshdboz on the flags staying -- I personally find them much more useful than even country names on a quick scan to identify which statement is from where (though I candidly admit that I may be in the nerdy minority on this). Ashdog137 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are able to write a summary of the information, I am fine with you it. But you want to be sure that you can find reliable and verifiable references for your summary of it. See WP:SYNTH. Because I feel doing so may be difficult, I am fine with leaving it the way it is. Precedent stands behind it and I really see no problem with it. SorryGuy  Talk  20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a rough outline of what a possible paragraph might look like. I'm really neutral on the issue, so please take it, leave it, or redo it as you see fit. Joshdboz (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Bhutto's assassinaiton was greeted by widespread condemnation by members of the international community, including Pakistan's regional neighbors Afghanistan, China, India, Bangladesh, and Iran. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh praised Bhutto's efforts for the improvement of India-Pakistan relations. The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting and unanimously condemned the assassination, a call echoed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Both EU President José Manuel Barroso and U.S. President George W. Bush also expressed the hope that Pakistan will continue on the path of democracy. The only major organization that did not condemn the attack was al-Qaeda, whose commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid told the media that "we terminated the most precious American asset who vowed to defeat the mujahideen."
Remove Al-Qaida quote from the para. It belongs to responsibility section. Thanks --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

Someone added an unneed {{fact}} tag here immediately after I added a detail. I did not bother to include an additional reference as it was one of the claims already made in the article used as a reference for the earlier claims. The same person later added another fact tag [3] again despite the fact the quote is in fact from the reference at the end of the paragraph. Generally speaking, if the entire paragraph is referenced from one source, it is not necessary to tag every single sentence. Indeed, you should always check the next reference cited and make sure it doesn't in fact verify what is mentioned before fact tagging. N.B. I didn't modify the paragraph at all other then to remove the fact tags and add the mega computer claim. I'm not the one who referenced it in that way but as stated, from my experience it's a perfectly acceptable way of referencing Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Autopsy[edit]

Well as I mentioned a while back this be the case and it appears I'm correct. Her husband had in fact denied a request for an autopsy [4]. I've added this to the article. If anyone could find a better source they're welcome. Also, it would be helpful if we can confirm the timeframe i.e. when was the request made? Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

rewording lead sentence?[edit]

The lead sentence would read better, would sound less stilted, as:

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on ...

instead of the current:

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto occurred on ...

The current sentence is not the way an ordinary person would speak. It sounds as if someone were trying to force fit the name of the page into a sentence. The WP:Manual of Style does not require that the name of the page appear verbatim in the lead sentence. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. Make the change. Kingturtle (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Background Section[edit]

Anybody else see the vandalism in this section or is it just me? --66.215.251.104 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you see it, please go ahead and fix it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
yea i got it too, unfortunately my schools ip was blocked and i couldn't revert it. -devel31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.243.123 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GAR[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments This is a well written article that has a few minor errors.

1. It is reasonably well written.

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated=>The assassination of Benazir Bhutto occurred....(Do not wikilink bolded words in lede).
"December 28"/"December 31" doesn't need to be wikified, since it isn't a full date.
All of these.
Do not start a sentence with a numerical number.
"Following a three-day shut-down, the benchmark index, the KSE100 index, of the Karachi Stock Exchange fell 4.7 percent and the rupee fell to its lowest level against the U.S. dollar since October 2001." Was this due to the assassination? Say/cite it.
"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahideen." Needs citation.
[30][106][93], needs to be in sequential order.

2.It is factually accurate and verifiable.

"baseless" and "a pack of lies". It needs a cite right after this sentence.

These few changes, and I believe it will become a WP:GA. PGPirate 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Title fixed. You will also see that the "pack of lies" statement is followed by another sentence summarizing the man's remarks, which is immediately followed by ref #37. Joshdboz (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess that is fine. I just like to see quotations with citations following immediately. PGPirate 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and double referenced it, in that case it is better to be clear, which was my mistake in writing it the first time. I also took care of the other statements needing referencing, and did the reordering. Any thing else stick out? SorryGuy  Talk  01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Updated comments
    • Month/day words are still wikilinked. i.e. December 26. Only month/day/year combos should be wikilinked.
      • This is not correct. It is appropriate to wikilink month/day only (so it will be 26 December for some readers and December 26 for others.) This was specifically addressed in our FAC. Mangostar (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Woopes, PGPirate 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, wikilink only the first occurrence of a word, not every occurrence. i.e Scotland Yard. There are others besides this one particular word. PGPirate 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I got a few. If there are further such circumstances that need correction, let me know. SorryGuy  Talk  01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a GA, but I would like for another editor to concur with me, before I pass it. (This is my first GAR) - PGPirate 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinions[edit]

A second opinion was requested, so here goes. First a technical correction, this review is for the WP:GAC process not the WP:GAR process.

The article does meet mostly meet the GA criteria IMO. However some grammar fixes are in order. Here are my suggestions:

  • and fell back inside after two gunshots.[6][23] The Times of India aired an amateur clip
  • Her last words were "Long live Bhutto."[25] It is not 100% clear who said these words, suggest instead "Benazir's last words" or "The bomber's last words".
  • election would be delayed until "towards the later part of February"
  • reported that several hours after her assassination she was planning to divulge evidence of fraud in the upcoming election after the event where the assassination occurred.
  • fell 4.7 percent. The rupee fell to its lowest level against the U.S. dollar since October 2001. with political uncertainty being blamed for the loses.
  • In the Economy section de-link railway stations and locomotives. This is per the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK. There are people who disagree with this guideline, so I would not vote against the GA because of this, just a friendly suggestion.
  • The the Associated Press that Mehsud was not at all involved in the assassination:
  • received word of the blast. He addressed the nation
  • "a national tragedy," and
  • workers,[97]. He vowed to "fight
  • De-link Prime Minister, UN Secretary-General, President, U.S. President, etc. (these terms would surely be linked or explained on the articles for the individuals mentioned). Again not everybody agrees with the over-linking this is more my opinion and advice.
  • Per Wikipedia:MOS#Currencies Figures in United States Dollars should be listed as $123.45 without writing USD. However, as the same paragraph mentions rupees and dollars, I think what you have is ok.

Overall a well done article. Congratulations to you both for your efforts to write and improve it. Dave (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. SorryGuy  Talk  01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I did not mark that I had volunteered to give a second opinion. I'll defer to Nikki311's judgement, who also gave a second opinion below. She found some things I missed. I do agree that this is a good article, aside from some minor grammar fixes that are required.

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I totally follow the aims of this project or what exactly everything you just said meant or even if you wanted the responses on this page, but I am willing to give my answers as:
1. No, I don't really think such is necessary. It only need be brought up if there are problems with the prose.
2. As a student, I primarily write essays. I almost never write creatively.
3. No, no part of Wikipedia influences my writing style.
I hope that helps. Let me know if you need any further information, SorryGuy  Talk  03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It does help, thanks. In order for a survey to be unbiased, we can't really tell anyone what it's "for"; in fact, we won't even know what it's for until we see what people's answers are. I think it's fair to say that we're trying to figure out what is and isn't helpful when we do the language and style part of the WP:GAN review. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review per 2nd opinion request[edit]

Because the main reviewer of this article has asked for a second opinion. I looked over the article. Here are a few things to fix before the article can pass:

  • Per WP:LEAD the lead should be three or four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
  • Numerals under 100, in most cases, should be spelled out.
  • Under Cause of death, most of the paragraphs begin with "On (date)". Try and mix it up to make it more interesting.
  • The following couple of sentences need refs: These persons were not pathologists and did not conduct a formal autopsy. The statement first narrates the course of treatment, from Bhutto's arrival at the hospital until she was declared dead. The second part of the statement details the head wound and notes that "Detailed external examination of the body did not reveal any other external injury". X-rays had been taken of the head wound and were interpreted in the statement. The cause of death was declared to be "Open head injury with depressed skull fracture, leading to cardiopulmonary arrest".
  • This part of the last sentence under that same section needs to be cited: an account that had been greeted with disbelief by Ms. Bhutto’s supporters, other Pakistanis and medical experts.
  • Under Responsibility, these refs need to be put in numerical order: [89][17][90]
  • A couple of the links are dead (See here) and should be replaced.

Not much to do. Fix these in the next seven days, and I'll do a quick copy-edit and pass that article. Thanks. Nikki311 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The seven days are up, and I really don't want to have to fail the article because it is really close to GA status. I'll give the editors of this article two more days to address these concerns. After that, I'll have to fail the article. Nikki311 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Nikki, This may be my fault. I saw the request for a second opinion at WP:GAC and volunteered, but did not inform WP:GAC that I had offered a second opinion. My mistake. Anyways, SorryGuy responded to my concerns above, but may not have been aware of these you posted. I think in that spirit you should give the nominators additional time, because of the confusion. I'll defer to your judgement as you found issues I did not, if you want to take over as the "second opinion" Thanks, and please accept my apologies.Dave (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorryguy is aware. I contacted him on his talk page after I did the review. Nikki311 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been eleven days, and the article cannot stay on hold forever. I'm failing it for now, but when these issues get fixed, renominate the article and notify me on my talk page. I'll look it over, so you won't have to wait so long for another review. Thanks and good luck. Nikki311 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

'Alternative' explanation.[edit]

I know you guys would delete this for the 500th time if I used 'ufo's as the subject.

anyway, since there is a section on conspiracies in the 9/11 page and the kennedy assasination page, i think that a sentence such as the following should be added to the 'responsibilites' part of the article:


Some people claim that because of unidentified craft appearing in the background of the rally, and because of a video which surfaced in which Bhutto claimed that Osama bin Laden was dead, there were motives for operatives from other governments to assasinate her



would tha tbe so bad? it's just ONE sentence. Palestinianpride (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ok since no one said anything im adding itPalestinianpride (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

once again somebody removed it without posting anything thanks a lot jerkfacePalestinianpride (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, there are no reliable sources regarding this. As far as I know, no mainstream news outlet has reported on any conspiracy theories surrounding Bhutto's assassination, making this a different situation than, say, 9/11 (where the conspiracy theories are notable and have been reported on by the mainstream media quite a bit). The video alone is not sufficient as a source. --clpo13(talk) 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

"She was clearly shot. If you examine the video, you will found that the first shot was missed, by that time Bhutto was sweaping her face with a handkerchief. Within a moment, the second shot was fired which hit her lower back, causing her hair and scarf to lift visibally, and then she felt inside the car clearly before the blast. She was really Martyr."

Removed the previous statement. Statement is POV. If it is linked to a video and the POV is removed, I have no issue with it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed statement again. Stop posting POV, site some sources, work on your grammar. Darthzekiel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

update inquiry[edit]

the UN and Scotland Yard have released their findings. can someone detail/synopsis in the relevant section. Lihaas (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


"Bin Laden Is Dead"[edit]

Benezir Bhutto stated that Osama Bin Laden was dead, naturally she was silenced the next day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate2 (talkcontribs) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember this was mentioned in the article, including a source from BBC alongside BBC's apology for having censored the interview in question. Why on earth was this removed? Richiez (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually the interview and video is mentioned here: Osama bin Laden#Reports_of_his_death. It would be still good to link to this article as the video contains plenty of informations relevant to this article - not the bin laden death claim but plenty of talk about the ISI and such. Richiez (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

sniper shot her.[edit]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/goodspeed-analysis-pakistani-journalist-‘next-target’/

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/benazir-bhutto-killed-in-a-sniper-attack-five-bullets-were-fired-on-her-updated_10010410.html

i have 2 somewhat unknown sources claiming She was shot and the bomb was to create confusion.

what do you think? --71.178.199.89 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 arrest warrant for Musharraf[edit]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/12/ap/asia/main7343174.shtml

Is it relevant that investigators have accused Musharrof of involvement in this plot? In light of the events of ths past 2 days, this might become more significant in world events...69.37.68.255 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Economy[edit]

63 railway stations, 149 bogies, and 29 locomotives were damaged within two days of Bhutto's death.

A bogie is the pivoting set of wheels underneath a railroad car. Since the list fails to mention that any railroad cars were damaged, although 29 locomotives were, I strongly suspect that the reference to "bogies" (which presently links incorrecctly to the specialized Jacobs bogie instead of just bogie) should be corrected to "railroad cars." Dick Kimball (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility section redundancy/inaccuracy[edit]

Casual reader/editor, not quite sure how to handle the redundant and/or inaccurate reference under Responsibility, first paragraph:

"On 27 December, al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid is said to have claimed responsibility for the assassination, telling several news outlets that "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahideen."[74] In his statement to the media, he further claimed that al-Yazid stated that al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri ordered the killing in October 2007.[75]" - Italicization added

Neither source there has a quote of al-Yazid directly saying al-Zawahiri was involved, although 74 does mention a report that suggests it. Posted here for someone a bit more experienced to sort out. Blackraven1425 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)