Talk:Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Nuclear provocation?

The article doesn't mention the possibility that this situation could unstabilize the region and bring it even closer to a nuclear war (its doubtful this one event would directly trigger it, but we keep seeing more and more provocation that could eventually lead to it).216.59.230.177 (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewording of sentence needed

The part of the article that claims "Bhutto will hold Musharraf responsible if she dies" is not proper at all: when you're dead, YOU are not holding anyone responsible. Say rather "Bhutto had indicated to X in a letter that in the event she was assassinated she would hold Musharraf responsible as a result of his lack of security."

Dead people don't hold anyone responsible, not good wording there. It's like saying "If I'm killed, I'm going to be very angry at my killer! No you won't, you'll be dead.

Citations

citations! where are the citations for her being dead? all of the news I can find lists her as critically injured. los (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

now see ref. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, better source now - los (talk)

Note about burning in hell should be removed - it's wikipedia, not public islamlection. Vasiliev Mihail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.110.126 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol.. "burning in hell".. c'mon people.. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

Why not move to Benazir Bhutto assassination per John F. Kennedy assassination? Joshdboz (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. We could move it to that location. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 14:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

to Dallas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• yes, that would make sense. I don't see why a date is needed in the title of this article... unless it is to differentiate between another Benazir Bhutto assassintion on another date... which is obviously not the case. - Prezboy1 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, any admin want to do this? Joshdboz (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshdboz (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Was just coming her to perform this exact action. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --mav (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New title is better! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, sounds better --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the JFK and RFK pages, the title has "NAME assassination" but then the lead sentence has The assassination of NAME... We could do the same here. Joshdboz (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK that's not important now. The article MUST GROW. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joshdboz. The intro feels a bit overally confusing at the moment. --Qszet (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TheFEARgod. The jury seems to be out on whether to use "[subject] assassination" or "Assassination of [subject]", but I think the latter sounds much better (a lá Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, and others). -- tariqabjotu 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will have to change my opinion, Assasination of Benazir Bhutto sounds better. And if that type of title have been used in several articles before, I do agree with TheFEARgod and Tariqabjotu. --Qszet (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

True, I hadn't seen those. I'm neutral on either format. Joshdboz (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I second Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Learner10 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The current name is fine: it doesn't have grammatical errors, is not misleading, and it describes the event that happened. If many users have a different preference, we can change it to after the story cools down, but for now let's leave it as is. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how moving the article early on is a problem. In fact, it would seem to make much more sense to move sooner rather than later; there would be many more side effects to rectify if we wait until things have settled. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto sounds much better. Can I move it? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An admin sould move it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh

Could someone please link Asma Jahangir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Dcfleck (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

UFOs?

what about the alleged appearance/involvement of unidentified craft during the rally? why has no one metioned this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palestinianpride (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No one mentioned it because it sounds like a load of crap... MooMix1 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we're not fruitcakes. BB was not assassinated by aliens. Toby Douglass (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL...who is this alleged by? Clinevol98 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

go look at any non-mainstream-media controlled news website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.143.102 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, because everyone knows that UFO's probably have a vested interest in destabilizing an already destabilized third world country.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.17.98.11 (talk • contribs)

If there were any unidentified crafts, then why don't you put up here the links to those non-mainstream-media. --Aleeproject (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like someone just adding useless infomation. Just ignore it! America69 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Syria did it. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you inferring it was a Syrial killer? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Just curious, is there a reason why this article has been protected? Going through the history it seems it hasn't been vandalized yet, or was perhaps on one occasion. Is is preemptory?--99.240.5.110 (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably pre-emptive. There was a lot of "unencyclopedic comment" on Augusto Pinochet when he died. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can the admin who did that initial protection provide a rationale? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it should be explained for the record. Joshdboz (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the semi-protection was necessary either. I think it should wait until after there is a flurry of vandalism; there are certain anonymous users that would be interested in editing the page, especially because it's linked from the Main Page and a current event. -- tariqabjotu 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I protected on the basis of discussion here, as the main article was being semi-protected for much the same reasons (outpourings of grief and political rhetoric might unbalance a sensitive subject - particularly from those less familiar with Wikipedia.) If it is considered that there are sufficient experienced contributors to counter such possible edits then I shall lift the protection.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive SP is not allowed so far as I know, so why is this article SP'd? See my comments here, and please unprotect. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is now able to be edited by any one. I would comment that it is far easier to protect it again for a few minutes than trying to revert a flood of pov edits should that happen (ie. please don't hesitate to ask for admin assistance if required.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf may have done it

It's entirely plausible..... dictators want to do ANYTHING to stay in power, including assassinating opponents. Never mind that assassination has the potential to lead to more trouble. An assassination triggered World War I, for example. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

May or may not. Who can tell yet? Anyway this isn't a discussion board about the event, but a place to discuss the Wikipedia article. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, clearly Musharraf didn't do it - he wasn't the gunman or the bomber or anything like that. And no matter who turns out to actually be ultimately responsible, Musharraf critics will hold him responsible (you know they will, whether or not he was involved; personally, I doubt he'd be QUITE this stupid). Either way, though, this page is not for discussing the event, it's for discussing the article about the event. A subtle difference, but an important one; please try to remember that. DS (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for speculation, we need to try and make sure everything in this article can be backed up by facts. Not to sound like a party-pooper, it's just a precaution. - Prezboy1 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know her own party didn't do it? She was a controversial leader at the best of times. But now that she's dead, it's rather difficult for her opponents including Mushraf to attack her legacy. But her party can benefit from her death and all the sympathy it generates... (please don't continue this discussion, my point is there a lot of plausible scenarios for who may be involved, wikipedia is NOT the place for such discussions to take place) Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if Musharraf was involved or not. What matters is what the people of Pakistan think. If they believe he is involved, then he may as well have been. They will treat him like he was, and the truth won't matter.Roneman90 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another reason for her party to kill her then. More to the point this still has nothing to do with the article. If reliable sources can be found that suggest that he was involved or that he majority of Pakistanis believe he was involved we can add that but until then... Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have any reliable sources, anyone adding that Musharraf ordered it really needs to cite it, it'll be removed otherwise. We also need to be really careful about what we say, I have a sense that thousands of people will be looking at this in the next few hours, and we need to give them the best information possible. Keilana 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Citations still missing for the "Two motorcycle riders fired at Butto's SUV with AK-47 assault rifles.." part. According to news reports here in Sweden the reports differs. Shouldn't that part be removed if not good sources can be provided? --Qszet (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This site mentions two men with AK-47s, but no mention of motorcycles. Joshdboz (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a {{fact}} tag. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another site that mentions motorcycle riders, but no specifics. Joshdboz (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. You might as well add it to the article. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

They seem like pretty minor news outlets, I think we might as well wait to see if it is reported in more mainstream agencies. Joshdboz (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If nothing comes up in the next few hours from major outlets, should it be removed as Original Research? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Without doubt, remove it. There's so much speculation right now, unless we include verifiable information with sources, we could find ourselves in another press mix-up for fake information. Unless it is confirmed and sourced, remove it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Here is the part that I have removed; if anyone can find sources to back up the below statement; it can be reinserted into the article:

"Two motorcycle riders fired at Bhutto's SUV with AK-47 assault rifles just as she was about to drive off after the rally. Simultaneously, a suicide bomber detonated next to her vehicle. It is currently unclear whether her death was caused by the blast itself or by shots fired by the assassins."

Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Found citation, added it back in. Mentioned both AK-47's and Motorcycles. Confirmed and sourced to Yahoo! Online News (AP Authors). That should be reliable enough. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, its reliable. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 16:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Economy?

Can someone actually explain to me how her death caused the price of oil to increase? Or is this just the media tying something completely unrelated in?Hsox05 (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just worried investors. It can be added to the article because the news article links the two events, so not OR. Joshdboz (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. This article is going to grow over the coming days and months, therefore more stuff will bedcome available. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Political instability always puts up the price of oil. Also, many of the oil producing Arab states use a Pakistani Muslim workforce - so Pakistani political instability might effect oil production. This is OR, so it can't be quoted, but you may find sources if it seems important enough. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree; any global tensions usually raise commodity prices, particularly gold and oil. However, both of those markets are very speculative at the present time and any event will be used as an excuse to bid them up by traders. The financial media is always looking for a reason to explain why things in the financial markets happen whether it's there or not, and this is a good event to pin the market reaction on. Clinevol98 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But in this case is there any actual evidence that the assassination caused any of the reported effects? Just because they happened after the assassination, it doesn't mean they were caused by it. Grassynoel (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, as that's a perfect example of a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy... assuming that because event B happened after event A, A must have caused B. Sometimes that can be true, but it doesn't automatically follow that it is. However it's not a stretch to say that an increase in political instability can affect the price of oil. It's much more of a stretch to say the assasination of a specific person caused it though. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's my point Grassynoel. The only way to truly know if oil and gold prices spiked because of the Bhutto assassination is if you were somehow able to ask every single person who bought oil and gold today why they bought oil and gold. If a majority of them said "because Benazir Bhutto was assassinated," only then could you directly link the two events. However, the media feels like they have to come up with a reason why things happen because, well, that's part of their job, isn't it? And when it comes to financial market reactions, it's just about impossible to say Event X caused this particular financial market reaction unless the news of the event crossing the wires correlates with a sharp, sudden price action in the financial markets. However, don't forget that there was also a bad durable goods number today that apparently weighed on the markets. All in all you cannot directly blame the assassination on the reaction of the financial markets but it could have been a contributing factor to an overall negative mood for the day. Clinevol98 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Economic impact section. That information is speculative, and the changes were minute. Kingturtle (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

News Services

See [1] this article for international reactions. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassination parallel to JFK and Princess Diana

I think Benazir Bhutto's assassination is like another repeat between the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the death of Princess Diana.

Benazir Bhutto is the Princess Diana of the Middle East I think. Is this event compared to John F. Kennedy or Princess Diana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.112.115 (talk)

First, Pakistan lies in South Asia, not Middle East. Second, Benazir Bhutto was a political leader who went on to become an elected prime minister of the country, Princess Diana simply married Prince Charles to begin with. I don't see any connection.Capo 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Diana wasn't assassinated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.57.222 (talk)

Sign your comments! And there is an investigation going on to prove that. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.} 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the only credible investigation that is ongoing is the coroner's inquest and its intention is to find out what happened not to prove she was assasinated. Last I heard, the case for her assassination wasn't going very well but that's OT for wikipedia let alone this article Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bhutto was an opposition leader to a dictator. But that doesn't mean she was a saint. She was not loved by many Pakistan people. She was much more of a symbol of peace outside of Pakistan. This event compares much more to Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, in that it may lead to some sort of World War. Kingturtle (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

World War? between who and whom? this is an internal matter to Pakistan, with assassins who do not come from a given country, let alone a neighbouring country that could be invaded. The main risk I can see is the destabilization of Pakistan and then the potential for conflict between India and Pakistan. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

who did it?

Would like a section on who did it.

Nobody knows, it did only happen a couple of hours ago. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.} 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the news articles have included speculation as to possible responsible parties. It was not just people (like on here) grinding axes, but thoughtful analysis. For instance one said that there were 3 possible parties (Al Queda, her brother's followers, Mushareff).

This is the digital age and people use the wiki to examine breaking news. If we really just cared about having an encylopedia, we wouldn't even have an article at all until a few days or weeks later. And we sure wouldn't have articles on each episode of South Park. But I digress...

Hey, I wasn't complaining if that's what you mean. Oh, and look at this. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.} 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we know if the assassins who didn't blow themselves up got away or got caught? Brutannica (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brutannica, I tend to agree with you. According to various media reports, the assasin _might_ have been the same person who when confronted by Bhutto's security detail (after firing fatal shots) blew him(her)self up. So I'd rather leave a note to this effect than adding a sentence that sounds conclusive - In that making assasing and sucide bomber the same person. Olkhicha appa (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence in the intro paragraph about the (current) most likely suspects, since it's not mentioned until very later in the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reaction website?

I got this website link in an email: http://benazir-reaction.tk/

ITS intresting that its the first dedicated reaction website, i tried to connect before, but due to the massive amounts of hits you coulden't conect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Street Scholar (talk • contribs)

Not a reliable source, I'm afraid. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.} 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not, .tk isn't even a legitimate top-level domain. Nftrot (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did the statement of the Canadian minister go? Or is it being replaced with the official statement by the Prime Minister's Office.

(PMO Site just sent the email notification. --Aleeproject (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

10 minute delay

This chronology claims that Bhutto's car wasn't approached until 10 minutes after the bombing in fear that there would be another. Can anyone confirm this? Joshdboz (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that not confirmation enough? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.} 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since details are vague, it would certainly help to find a second source. Most other articles say she was "rushed" to the hospital. Joshdboz (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Economic

"On the same day, the Euro had reached an all-time high against the pound and advanced versus the dollar and yen."
It's an article about the assassination of Benazir Bhutoo right? It's completely out of subject. If you "protect" this page, make sure before that the stupidest contributors are not registred since a long time. 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The news article linked to by the editor purposefully links the two events, so this is not OR from what I can see. Joshdboz (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me, major events like this always affect the economy, and this definitely qualifies. Keilana 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, it's a bit premature to infer a causal relationship between the assassination and economic shocks. It is even more problematic to trace movements in the dollar/Euro exchange rate to the attack - it's very unclear how the relationship of the two currencies would be affected in this case. Fasrad (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Video Coverage

Here's a group of related videos that can be referenced for articles in this article.

Bhutto commenting on Nawaz Sharif [2] Musharrif condems assination. [3] Whitehouse condems assination. [4] ABC coverage of assination. [5] CBS coverage of assination. [6] Bhutto entering her car moments before assination. [7]

We do not need a lot of videos as references. Has CBS, ABC and co. given you permission to upload the videos to redlasso.com? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken Red Lasso is a user contributed site ala YouTube and so most or all of those are likely copyvios so we can't link to them Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope... Redlasso has no user generated content. We make broadcast media searchable and clip'able. Jmccusker (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The problem is is that the creator of the site is the one putting the videos into the article. He claims he is the creator here and look at his contributions. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 17:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say user generated, I said USER CONTRIBUTED. The content on Red Lasso was contributed by users. As with most user contributed content, the copyright owners permission was not obtained to redistributed said content. Edit: see below Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We are posting news clips in relation to relevant articles. Redlasso provides broadcast media search and clipping services without any charge or advertisement. Jmccusker (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you had any permission from ABC, CNN etc. to do this? Also, linking it is against Wikipedia's external links policy. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What section of the external links policy are these links violating? Jmccusker (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights (which says we don't link to external copyvios) Edit: Well it appears that RedLasso does indeed have permission at least according to the Philidelphia Inquirer Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the word is spelled assassination not assination. Too many people spell it wrong. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this to WP:ANI, see here. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Daily Mail coverage

[8]

"Benazir Bhutto was shot dead by a gunman today who then detonated a bomb killing himself and about 20 others.

The former prime minister of Pakistan tried to duck into a car as the man started shooting but was hit in the head and neck.

As guards opened fire the attacker detonated a device believed to have been packed with lead pellets. It caused carnage among the crowds of supporters who had gathered to see her. A police officer at the scene said: "As party leaders, including Bhutto, started coming out a man tried to go close to them and then he fired some shots and blew himself up." Bhutto underwent emergency surgery but doctors and party representatives confirmed she had passed away.

"At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital."

Mytwocents (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Pakistani Prime Minister assassination in Rawalpindi

I added Assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan as a see also link. It was subsequently removed as irrelevant. I think it is relevant to link to another assassinated Pakistani Prime Minister. --Elliskev 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is relivent enough for a see also link and would make the encyclopedia better. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Decided to re-add it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan does not exist as a redirect. 70.55.86.184 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

boxes

should this box also be on the page?

And is this part of WikiProject Crime, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics?

70.55.85.92 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

box on page? no the page name makes it obvious, put on the Benazir page

categories Crime Yes, Biography No (not yet anywho), Politics Yes --68.209.2.187 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Chile's reaction

This is the chilean goverment declaration about the assasination attemp. Can somebody add it? Rakela (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One must wonder if we indeed ought to. I understand that it's important to add several reactions, but the section is getting a bit dense as is. Most of the other nations (and that thing the UN that dares call itself an organization) have some sort of ties to Pakistan or the region (Canada is a bit of a stretch). Perhaps we could consolidate it into a section of "others" of "others". The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. This [9] lists Poland's and Ireland's reaction to the Burmese anti-government protests. And this [10] lists the reactions of almost all countries and some international organizations to the 2006 Lebanon War. Perhaps those reactions should be put in a separate article. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That, however, is international reaction to the event, not about the event itself. Given the thread below, I believe there is a consensus to start such an article here, where the inclusion of Chile would work. I'm thinking of doing so myself: International reaction to the Benazir Bhutto assassination. However, my computer is so drattedly slow... The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Canada and Pakistan are both members of the Commonwealth of Nations. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in consensus to start a new article. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Statements from leaders

Do we really need all (or any) of these statements from world leaders? They all say the same thing, and I doubt anyone is going to say anything of use. It all sounds quite ceremonial to me. Kingturtle (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I like them! How will one know about the responces of the nations of the world?Richardkselby (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, would it be too much to ask for a separate article on it? Good chance it would get nailed for AFD, but worst case scenario we would just have to back-merge it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to split it into a second article if necessary as there's plenty of precedent (International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test, International reaction to the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency, etc) but there really isn't a compelling reason to delete all this verified information wholesale. Joshdboz (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Split ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see such information being useful if there were varying stances, like some for and some against - but these just seem to be all the same "We are shocked and saddened, and something needs to be done." No one is even saying "We're going to send money" or "We're going to send a delegation." Kingturtle (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So how do we decide which countries are featured in the main article and which are only in the spin off? 86.31.35.135 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, information can only be defined as that stuff which induces the most surprise at the receiver. It is conditional as well: the information value of B may be quite small given A. So, it can be said that the murder of Bhutto is informative, at least in the aspect of the date and immediate events (few are surprised at the event, not the least of which is Bhutto herself). But given the assassination, the pile-on from Glorious Leaders around the world shaking their fingers at the assassins ("naughty naughty!") -- none of which who would have had the cajones Bhutto exhibited -- is of extremely limited value, barring the obsequious sycophants for said leaders. So I suggest nixing the entire list and replacing it with a short paragraph about the general outrage, and giving any direct quote time only to significant Pakistani interests: India and the United States. Naturally, if anyone did break from the mold and say something like "Well done!" or "She deserved it!" or similar nonsense, that should be mentioned, as it would indeed be quite informative. mdf (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Dollar Rose

The Canadian dollar went up .47 cents to the U.S. dollar because of the assasination. Richardkselby (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I believe it. That would be a 50% change. Are the markets really that jittery? If you have a source... The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect reporting of metric data, it went up 0.47 cents (or 4.7 tenths of a cent). Given the wild fluctuations of the Canadian dollar as against the American over the last few months, though, unless we have multiple very good references linking this rise to the assassination, I would not include this information. Risker (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry fir what I did. It is 0.47 cents, what Risker said. Here it is, the dollar slipping against the yen and the Swiss franc. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5407027.html. Richardkselby (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See my previous comments on oil prices about "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacies. You could almost make a case of something like this affecting oil prices but I strongly suspect its effect on curreny exchanges to be negligible or non-existant. Can anyone seriously explain the logic of why the value of Canada's currency would go up vs. US's currency due to an assasination in Pakistan? I'd love to hear that one... .47 cents (aka .0047 dollars) can easily be explained by the fluctuation already occuring in the Canadian dollar before the assasination and to tie it to this assasination directly is just plain rediculous. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The US is a significant player in Pakistan, so a failure -- be it political, security, military -- there can effect the view of the USA in general. US goes down, most everyone else (including Canada) will go up. In general, the "market" is always looking for an excuse to extract a profit, and will seize on even the flimsiest of rationale. Monetized gossip. But generally speaking, you are correct: a simpler model of this is just random chance, and this is true no matter how many pundits the "market" can produce to rationalize their behavior. mdf (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Word Choice

Just a comment, but in the International reaction section, the word "Condemn" is used 14 times. Just a comment. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Home Town

I think karachi is not her hometown. Larkana aur Garhi Khuda Bakhsh may be her home town. So please correct the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal eyes (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Karachi is indeed her hometown per official biography on her party's website [11] Olkhicha appa (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Behind assasination?

I was just watching CNN. Wolf Blitzer was on, talking about the assasination. However, the headline said something to the effect of "Bhutto said Musharraf assasinated her", with a byline saying "Bhutto sent e-mail to supporters the night before her assasination". Unfortunately Wolf was talking about something else at the moment, and he moved on the another topic. So i'm not sure what the details are. But it seemed to be saying, essentially, that Bhutto knew she was going to be killed in the near future, and that if she was, she wanted people to know/think that it was Musharraf that caused it. I dunno. I'm at work, so I can't research this to find a link or source, but would someone be interested in checking this out? What's the deal? Did Bhutto know that there were plans for her assasination? Did she think Musharraf was up to something? Shnakepup (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's ridiculously relevant, and if it proves true, I have little doubt it will be picked up by others within the space of an hour and properly inserted with reference. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a misunderstanding of the email she sent out saying she would "hold M responsible if she died" because he wasn't providing enough security for her. Toby Douglass (talk)

I won't rule it out, but it is simply not credible that Musharraf is behind the assassination. Look at it with some logic: secular government agents aren't the types behind suicide bombings. Minions of a secular government are interested in getting paid and living well later on. Religious extremists, on the other hand, assume that there will be no "later on" other than a "reward in paradise." Perhaps the seventy virgins or whatever. When I heard the killer blew himself up after shooting her, I logically ruled out Musharraf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.136.25 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. No evidence - no source - no need to be added. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. I was about to check comments on this out of curiosity, and expected dozens of posts saying "Musharraf - guilty! 100%." I was very surprised to read your opinion, which I totally agree with. First of all, I have absolutely no idea If Musharraf is really guilty or not, but I'd say the chances are minimal for the same reasons you mentioned. My bet is on muslims who can't stand to see a woman as a head of state. Those who are familiar with the muslim world will know what I'm talking about. To westerners this seems rather.. strange and as some kind of nonsense, but that's the reality in certain parts of the world. At the same time this assassination would be a blow to Musharraf because a lot of people will find him guilty, and (religious) muslims don't really want Musharraf as the head of state because he prefers a secular country and is actually helping against talibans in Afghanistan (of course, for the money). This is all theory of course. 78.0.112.70 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear 78.0.112.70, she was already Prime Minister of Pakistan for many years before she went into self-imposed exile, why wasn't she assasinated in those many many years she held office (if the Muslims couldn't stand a female head of state)? It's not that she is a woman, but the fact that she was an absolutely horrible and corrupt Prime Minister in her first term and gained lots of enemies that she was assasinated.

So we're going to have anti-Islamic rhetoric now? Suicide bombers are usually poor, they usually do the job because their families get paid by some source to do it. You guys saying that it was "Islam" or the "Muslims" have nothing to base your allegations with except bigotry and illogical thinking. She was the prime minister TWICE. Kicked out by the millitary both times and NOT ASSASSINATED BY MUSLIMS. So what makes you think the millitary wants her now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.96.68 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If she "knew" she was a target, then standing up from her supposedly bomb-proof car, she was practically begging for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

--216.110.236.243 (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove the article please

Does anyone think that those Extermists read Wikipedia just asking , they would seem to get "turn on" from you people posting this information. You people post this here on Wikipedia, any terriosts asshole would just read to honor that asshole that killed this former Prime Minister. You people seem to post all the sucide bombings in the Middle East. When you post a article about "these" types of attacks, you encourage this to occur more. Why, do you post this for.76.209.206.59 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please refer to the definition of encyclopedia before posting anything else ridiculus. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, so you what just keep this on . JoshHuzzu , you support the martar that this act. All of you people of Wikipedia should be ashmed of yourself by posting this article on Wikipedia you are given the asshole that belew this brains off , and killed Benazir Bhutto a sort of "hall of fame" for Al-Queda , and what ever fucked up terriost group that bastard was from. I notice that you people post every suscide bombing in every country, every assination, coup. That just wrong , you are just making the world more worse. My opinion you people on wikipedia are just helping the terriosts recurit more martars , by showing them the "work" that those "people" did. So JoshHuzzu, you stil agree to this then , if you believe that wikipedia is an encyclopedia , try looking at the world now, you people seem to post the dirty work , pictures of dead inocent people that were killed by these bastards. You people are just as worst as those terriosts. Shame on you, for posting all the "graphic details, the names of the people, it just motivates more attacks". What you all do is just motiavates more attacks. Yeah , I bet that Va Tech would not have happend it that Korean didnt find the Columbine shoting article. You people encourage school shooting , by posting them here. You people are just immoral for posting "school shoting, paedophila, necrophila, bdsm, incest, images of erotica, and images of the dead. Why do you people like that for does it give you a sort of high. I just want this article to go away. If you leave this up, some asshole Al-Queda prick is just going to copy it you all know that, you are puting fuel to the fire. Listen to me , erease this article. For the all that good left in this world erase it. I dont think that Ms. Benazir Bhutto would not apperciate you people posting her "Wikiedia death cerfictate".70.255.171.187 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you over-rate the importance of the Wiki to anyone involved in this sort of act. We are not important to them in any way, shape or form. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

...oh, yeah and newspapers should only carry stories about puppy dogs and ice cream socials.67.52.10.186 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys are encouraging more terroism in the world. You guys keep making a "hall of fame" for these bastards on wikipedia, erase this article. Do you think Ms. Bhutto would like this you post here death on this site. Try thinking about this.

Cry me a river. Terrorism existed before Wikipedia, before mass medias; before radio, tv, newspapers or whatever. Muslim terrorists certainly don't kill because of publicity and fame - that's what some school kids in USA do. Suicide bombers die for their ideals (I'm not going into how right or wrong those are). No one cares about hall of fame except you it seems. I for one like to read the news, and don't like to read comments such as yours. 78.0.112.70 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument makes about much sense as asking to delete the Holocaust article to prevent genocide. - Prezboy1 (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting this article should be removed. You are just gaining publicity for Al-Queda. All of you people that dont respond this request will be called terriosts. So you terrorists better respond or I will get INTERPOL or the NSA to track you down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.22.217 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(text removed, see history) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL, or to paraphrase, please do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Further, while you listed the article for deletion properly, you left no subpage for it and as such I would ask that you cite specific policy on Wikipedia that speaks to the need for deletion of this article. Overall, your actions imply WP:POINT and I believe anyone here will agree to the removal of your AfD template. SorryGuy  Talk  21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clear up that my initial removal of the AfD tag was not to intended to disrupt standard Wikipedia process. Because the editor had left a nonsense rational along with the tag, I reverted it as I would any other nonsense edit. Joshdboz (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 70.129.22.217 for legal threats. Feel free to drop a line at my talk if he pops back again. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. So everyone who commits a crime decides to visit Wikipedia before hand for some inspiration? Dude, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a place which encourages these sorts of horrid acts. It's like blaming the Boeing company for making aeroplanes (for September 11). The article stays. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• On a slightly related note, should "Al Queda" exist as a redirect to Al-Qaeda, even though it seems to just be a misspelling? There is no way "Queda" could sound like "Qaeda". Funkynusayri (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Al Queda shouldn't redirect to Al Qaedo. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it's not spelled "al-Qaeda", either. That's just an English transliteration. So there's nothing wrong with similar English spellings redirecting. But he knew that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, it does. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i am sueing joshHuzzuh for slander for 1, 000 USD. joshHuzzhu you better not edit the article or else, I will sue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.80.211 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On a more realistic note, it should redirect because it is a very common mispelling. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

International reactions

• The remaining international reactions on this page should be removed as they already exist in the separate article to international reaction to the Benazir Bhutto assassination. NorthernThunder (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This should be merged with the main article. There's no need to separate the reaction and the article. Josh Anderson (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the rest is an option, although we could still leave some of the major country reactions. And JoshHuzzuh, there's plenty of precedent for a separate international reaction section when it gets too large. Joshdboz (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "major country" but I am afraid that making such a distinction would create an unbiased article. NorthernThunder (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A full list in this article would clutter far too much. In fact, the current list clutters, and I propose we reduce it to just the following: Members of the UN Security Council, the EU, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sakkura (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And by the EU I mean the common statement by Barroso, not statements by the individual member nations. Also the statement by the UN secretary general should stay, in my opinion. Sakkura (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean permanent members of the UN Security Council, not just memebers? Anyway, while I'm not convinced your list of countries to stay is the best idea (I personally don't see the need for the UK and France) we currently are following your suggested list more or less (permanent link except we're missing Afghanistan, Bangladesh and France. But the problem is not so much just the number of countries but the length. We don't need such long statements from most of the countries particularly the US, UK, Russia and India which are IMHO way to long at the moment Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really taking a stance on whether it should be only permanent members, but if that seems reasonable to people I certainly won't object to it. The reason it follows my list is that the list in the article has been further trimmed by myself and others. I do see a reason for at least the UK reactions to be here, since Pakistan is a former British colony, and the UK is the second-most influential English-speaking country in the world. Anyway, the UN security council just seemed like the most obvious agreed-upon list of internationally influential countries. It seems that Bangladesh and Afghanistan were deleted, which I disagree with. Bangladesh is historically connected to Pakistan, and Afghanistan is the neighbor with partial anarchy, a plausible breeding ground for terrorism. Sakkura (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

15 countries+EU+India+Bangladesh+Afghanistan+UN Secretary General definitely seems too much to me for the main article (maybe I counted some twice I couldn't be bothered to check if any of those are in the security council but it doesn't make a big difference). I also disagree about the UK. The only relevance Pakistan being a former British colony has comes from the Commonwealth not the UK (and it's well established the UK's influence there is not as great as they may like). I also don't see English speaking as particularly relevant in the context of international reactions. (Yes they both speak English but so what? Are the Pakistani people/goverment going to listen/care more to a country because they speak English?) Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho, hum. Something else for Wikipedians to bicker over. "My country's opinion is more important than your country's opinion ... ". How about we just list EVERY response in the same place, either the main article or a sub-article. WWGB (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware we are only discussing what should appear in the main article. The problem is removing everything from the main article will leave actually nothing. It might be best to include a brief summary ala 2006 Thailand coup#Diplomatic reactions rather then a list of countries but we need something. Including every single response in this article would definitely be unwieldy and giving undue weight. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I was really hoping people weren't going to fight over something stupid like this. If we really want the entire stupid article to be filled up with 100KB of opinions about what Vatican City, Chile, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have to say about the thing because you think it's somehow fairer (please note, the N in NPOV stands for neutral, not no), then we will get what we pay for. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the section a bit more [12] although it could still do with a bit more trimming IMHO Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Investigation section

Added new section, needs more info/sources, if available. Rodrigue (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this section until there's more to write about. Right now, it just says that the White House and Bhutto's party have called for an investigation but the International Reactions section covers that in much greater detail. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Riots in reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto be merged into this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, the resultant article will be better for it.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

no need to merging. in future if the article be stub, we could merg them. thanks for your attention.--Gordafarid (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree to merger. It would fit into Benazir Bhutto assassination#Reaction in Pakistan, perhaps as a table? WWGB (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree to the merger. Mspraveen (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse this merger. If we can find some references, I think the article can start to be added to the main article. SorryGuy  Talk  04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That riot information needs mucho sources, eh? Merge sounds good too. Kingturtle (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

merge what?

okay, now that we agreed that it should be merged, what exactly should I merge? Most of the article is WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of redirecting it here and taking off the merge tag since there was almost no substantive information not already covered and an obvious consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.62.180 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge after we get some of the information that was there off into the main article. -WxHalo(T/C) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone's undone the redirect. I think that's wrong though; there's precious little to merge and a redirect is the simplest solution. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'ver redirected it back. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

mergefrom Funeral of Benazir Bhutto

• Agree - Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 10:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Of course! This shouldn't really be a question. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 12:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Merged to this section. Please change as necessary. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags

I have removed the flags here as per WP:Flags however User:Alokprasad84 has taken issue with this , please discuss Gnevin (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why flags should not be used, see International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test, International reaction to the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency, etc. It aids the reader when scanning the list, is not in the lead, and is not overused. Please cite the part of the guideline that you believe this violates. Joshdboz (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that they could be omitted here, as the list is subjective rather than exhaustive. I strongly support their continued use, however, at International reaction to the Benazir Bhutto assassination. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on the guidelines talk page , i'm not going to debate it here ,again .Please raise the issue(s) you see wrong with the guideline over there. All i want to know is where people editing this article stand. Flags add nothing to this article what words don't already give, scanning or not Gnevin (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that when you have 9 countries/organizations in list format, for me, the flags help and improve the article. At best, removing them does nothing, at worst, it degrades the quality of the article. Again, I am not very familiar with the guideline, can you please point out exactly where this use would violate it? Joshdboz (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gnevin. I do not carry around a database of flag images in my head. In fact, even if I did, when I call up the search function in my browser, it requests some text to look for, not a picture. Is there a browser which does? And if this function did not exist, I have read enough in my life to be able to scan an entire page of text for particular words fast enough on my own. Faster still if the page has been structured appropriately - a table, a list, with isolated headings. Little volatile pictures are useless, if they aren't in the way in the first place.

Going further on this matter, I'm going to guess that the entire reason these little lists of "responses" from individual nations due to Bad Thing X exist only because the individual editors who add them are simply toadying the State, wanting to show the colors. Nothing wrong with this per se, but it doesn't strike this editor as particularly encyclopedic in the long term. As I mentioned above, focus on interests instead of every last little predictable statement of shock and horror. We just have to realize that if Pakistan dropped into a black hole tomorrow, places like Ireland wouldn't even notice. This is neither bad nor good, it's just the way things appear to be: Ireland can wait until (say) the rest of the United Kingdom sinks into the sea... mdf (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with keeping the flags. In fact, to a number of users it can helpful for skimming and scanning. Kingturtle (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally with Kingturtle. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 14:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Flags make scanning easier. Consensus to reinstate them? 86.31.35.135 (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly looks like it, for the record I also agree. In addition, the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Summary does not proscribe the use of flags in a list of this sort, it even mentions that they may be appropriate. Sakkura (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added them back in per the above consensus. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a quick call to "consensus" if you ask me. I don't see how they actually add to the article. Frankly, the UN flag doesn't help me identify the organization which isn't a nation. And beyond flags from the G8 and a few other big nations (e.g. China), it really doesn't help me identify countries any quicker. The guidelines in WP:FLAGS which state that flags may be appropriate in lists has more to do with repeated entries (then flags are useful for quick scans), which is not the case here.--Boffob (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They add to the article by making it much easier to identify the nations, as well as delineates each response more clearly than plain text would allow. For those extremely few people that don't recognize the flags of the UN, US, China etc., the name of the country is right next to the flag - and the flag helps guide the eye there. Frankly, the call to remove them seems like pointless purism to me. Sakkura (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the flags are a distraction, rather than helpful. JMHO. BBhounder (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Al Jazeera link dead

This link used seven times in the article is dead. Can some try and find sources to replace the dead Al Jazeera source. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 14:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ok if a link dies as long as we have the original retrieve date listed. Researchers know that the Web is liquid, and that links die and change. Kingturtle (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still this cache available. WWGB (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted that in its place for the time being. When the Al Jazeera source comes back; I'll re-insert it. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A cached copy is inadmissable hearsay. mdf (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Google archives are definitely out. WebCite is acceptable if anyone bothered to archive it. See Wikipedia:Citing sources Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead links are prima facie unverifiable, and this editor refuses to accept them "liquid web" be damned. If the link dies or changes, you must adjust the article accordingly. This is the price you must pay to participate in the media clusterfuck. mdf (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't come back, I'll go through the article and take all of them references out. E-mail Al Jazeera if you really want to to tell them that its dead. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, you could have said that in a more civil manner, especially because you're wrong. A live source would be better than a dead source. However, if there is none available, there's no reason to take out the dead link (unless you have something contradicting the information cited to the dead source). That's the reason there's an accessdate field for web sources. -- tariqabjotu 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is uncivil to note that a dead link is prima facie unverifiable? This seems to me to be simple common sense at work. That there is an access date doesn't change this reality one tiny bit: perhaps at some instant in time some statements were verifiable, but now they are not. As soon as this is pointed out, new sources need to be found, and (in my opinion) found very quickly. Especially so for a breaking news thing like the current article, as we have no idea why the link went dead. Perhaps the original publisher has repudiated it?

I can understand this is a massive problem for articles that are heavily based on mainstream media sources. This is why I also affixed my comment about the "media clusterfuck". If Wikipedia editors choose to participate in the information fog-of-war that oozes out of CNN and the rest of them, then the price these editors pay is going to be somewhat higher than if they find more traditional, non-volatile, reliable sources. Easy in, easy out: when the mainstream sources change, are deleted, or found to be in error, Wikipedia must follow in lockstep. Sitting around awaiting some distant re-verification simply because a statement was sourced in the past simply ignores the reality of the poor reliability of these sources in the first place. mdf (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable (if need be) to have a reference to a dead link. To quote from Wikipedia:Citations, if another alternative URL cannot be found, "do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced." Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an extreme, and utterly unwarranted, bias towards trusting mainstream media sources. My personal view is that Wikipedia should not be reading today's newspaper, but if people wish to engage in that, I say they should be held to just as high a standard as those editors who rummage around in real libraries, unearthing more traditional, realiable, nonvolatile, sources for articles. mdf (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, however, does not have these sort of guidelines. Instead, we only ask that our sources are verifiable as asserted by WP:V. It happens that almost every thing from a major media sources meets these requirements. Take issue with the guideline, if you like, but that is what we have to work off of when writing this article. As for print references, many articles use them, however it is not really possible to find books on events that occurred a day ago. SorryGuy  Talk  23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is policy, and while I'm no expert on this, it appears to trump mere guidelines. And the very first section of this policy is quite explicit on who has the burden of evidence, and seems to side quite well with what I have written here. "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, [...]", and the project leader is even quoted in more or less firm agreement with this (and in point-blank lethal agreement for biographical articles). I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that a statement that is traced to a dead link to a early mainstream source is, for all practical purposes, unsourced. Waiting "six months or more" for the reference to re-appear seems to go well beyond "too long", don't you think? Should Wikipedia editors wish to play the media game, is it really all that unreasonable to demand they track the media itself in almost real-time by adding, adjusting, and removing sources as they appear, change, and disappear in the info-wilderness? mdf (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this article makes it clear that dead links are a fact of life on the Internet, and Wikipedia has existing ways of dealing with the issue. That does not necessarily include deleting/adjusting links if and when they drop out. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are most definitely correct between about the differences of policies and guidelines. I misspoke and hope it did not create confusion. However, as WWGB says, I believe the current reference should stay. To be honest, I am not really sure where you are coming from as you seem to be coming at this issue from multiple angles. If you could clarify, it would be appreciate it. I also would like to remind you that as Wikipedia editor, you are as capable as finding further references as any of us. At any rate, cheers. SorryGuy  Talk  08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause of Death

CNN is reporting this morning that hospital reports are now stating the Benazir Bhutto did not die from a gunshot wound, but from shrapnel from the bomb detonated by the suicide bomber. Could someone with more time than I have this morning please follow up on this, check some sources and make the changes to the Articles?

Thanks -- Michael David (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The CBC is also reporting that

"a surgeon who treated Bhutto said she died from a shrapnel wound to the head, not gunshot wounds as previously reported."

CBC.ca: Mourners overwhelm Bhutto funeral

--Rrburke^(talk) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawn quotes The Pakistani Interior Ministry to the same effect:

Flying shrapnel caused Benazir's death : Interior Ministry

--Rrburke^(talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

--CNN is now reporting that she died as a result of hitting her head on the sunroof of her car, the was nothing discovered in her body. This is was is being sais the the interior miniter of pakistan. --Random05 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vehicle Killed In

the vehicle she was killed in was clearly a Toyota Land Cruiser. this article stated it was a land rover. The incorrect information has been replaced and corrected.Kcuello (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Source? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kcuello, I sourced it to Newsweek, although there are plenty of others available. Joshdboz (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Assassination OR Accident?????

interior miniter of pakistan now saying that she died as a result of hitting her head on the sunroof of her car, there was nothing discovered in her body. Alokprasad84 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

CNN is also reporting that she died as a result of fracturing her head on her SUV.[13] Shea hey (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So? an assassination attempt occurred, the target died indirectly instead of directly. I suspect the Government would like to make it seem more like she wasn't *actually* assassinated to help calm the population; right now she is a cause célèbre against M. Because the Government has such a strong agenda of their own in this matter, their comments require considerable caution. Toby Douglass (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, CNN is quoting official Pakistani Government. Kushal^t 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

as much as it will piss people off, it does seem like an accident to me. If the final conclusion is that she was a little stupid and smacked her head on the sunroof, then should the assassination be called an accident, as far as wikipedia is concerned?Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Even if this is true, it occurred because and only because of the assassination attack. The intention of the attackers was to kill her, using bullets and bombs. As it turned out, if this is true, their actions led her to being killed by injuries sustained in her attempted escape. Their attack was successful; the only difference is that the means were not that which had been expected.

To put it another way; imagine she was attacked physically. An attacker was just about to shoot her, when he was intercepted by her security and the attacker did not in fact harm her. But the stress of the attack induced a fatal cardiac infarction. Would we say she died of an accident? as if she had died in her sleep? of course not. If she had died in her sleep, it would be natural causes; just her body aging and failing. But in the former case, we clearly see the fatal event occurred because and only because of the attempt on her life. Accordingly, it seems correct to me to assert the assassination attempt was successful; the fact that the means were not that which the attackers intended to use is irrelevant. After all, consider; imagine their intent was to shoot her, but she evaded their bullets and got into a vehicle. They then inadvertently blew up the vehicle by shooting its petrol tank. Clearly, in this case, she would have been assassinated, even though again the means were not that which were originally intended. Similarly, if you're shooting at someone and they die in their efforts to escape, you have assassinated them. Toby Douglass (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

True, though using "assassination" in the title gives the initial impression that the reason is much clearer than it may be. BBC/CNN/NBC/etc are still using the word "assassination" in their story titles and short summaries, but if the indirect killing is confirmed, I wouldn't be surprised if they start using other descriptions in their summaries. --12.215.100.131 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Ms. Bhutto hitting her head and dying of head trauma constitutes "assassination", "accident", or both, the last sentence of the opening para of the article is inconsistent with the rest of the article: "There are possibilities that Benazir Bhutto was not shot but the impact of the bomb pierced her neck and shoulder." I have to assume it's a carryover from the earlier more speculative tone of the article. I'm pretty tempted to edit the article, though I usually just restrict my wikitivity to vandal-squishing. - Gnoitall (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I am fine with keep the wording as is and honestly do not believe I will have a different belief in the near future. If I could come up with a wording better than accident, I might support a change, but assassination better describes the events than accident. SorryGuy  Talk  21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed even the official statement from the ministry supports the view that this is an assasination not an accident. 'According to an Associated Press report, the Ministry stated "Bhutto was killed when she tried to duck back into the vehicle, and the shock waves from the blast knocked her head into a lever attached to the sunroof, fracturing her skull".'. This doesn't say she just hit her head. It says the shockwave of the blast knocked her head into the sunroof. This is still directly linked to the bombing, it's not as if she just accidentally fractured her skull when ducking back into the car (which would seem a bit unlikely to me, she would have to hit her head very had) Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death can apparently determine "Martyr" status

Wolf Blitzer's CNN program just showed the pistol being shot at her. There was also presented on his show the hypothesis that being martyred would aid her cause among muslims so the Musharef gov might be coming up with this "hit her head" theory to prevent her being seen as a martyr. It is suspicious that the Pakistan government is saying "no bullet or schrapnel was found in her body" instead of saying "there was no sign of bullet or schrapnel wounds". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If none was found, none was found their statement seems accurate to me (besides that, they're Pakistani, whoever made the statement may have not had perfect English). Also, you could make the alternative argument that her supporters made up the details of her dying from being shot as it will aide their cause. However I don't see any of this as being likely since even the ministry statement supports the view she was 'maryted' (she was killed as a direct result of the blast) Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

She died as a direct result of the actions of the assassins, even if she didn't die in quite the manner they intended. It was not an accident, it was an assassination, period. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of dead - 21 or 22?

I don't have all the stories, but is it possible those listing 22 are include her or the attacker, wherein the ones saying 21 do not? TheHYPO (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in the lead

What is everyone's feelings on the recent addition of Al-Qaeda claims in the lead? Right now it is unreferenced, and I am going to add some, but do we feel that at this point there is enough confirmation to add it to the lead? SorryGuy  Talk  21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the source. Is it reliable? Is the Al Qaeda claim clearly mentioned? Then yes. But if you have doubts, don't include it yet. We might get cited by the press. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that someone else has already removed it, and frankly, at this time I was not comfortable with it in the lead. There is too much conflicting information. SorryGuy  Talk  22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the Pakistani government appears to be blaming a group and a separate individual, another al-Qaeda operative supposedly claimed responsibility, and no investigation has been completed. No need for a lead sentence yet, unless anyone wants to write sentenced or two that covers all that confusion. Joshdboz (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's back (or still there). It needs to go. It's unsourced and is in the weasley passive voice. 68.219.59.81 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Beware of WP:SYNTH

Just a note about an issue that arose at Talk:Benazir Bhutto. Ekantik ^talk 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal?

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

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

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)

Australian/Kevin Rudd response

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)

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 shold 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 Afganistan 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)

This Is Actually Really Sad

And I don't even know a lot about this woman. It's just so unchivalrous to shoot a lady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.195.3 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorism"

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)

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)