This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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 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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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)
OK, I propose an overhaul of this section on a few accounts.
Thought? If people reject the second proposal, I still suggest the first. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The lead sentence would read better, would sound less stilted, as:
instead of the current:
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)
Anybody else see the vandalism in this section or is it just me? -- 66.215.251.104 ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments This is a well written article that has a few minor errors.
1. It is reasonably well written.
2.It is factually accurate and verifiable.
These few changes, and I believe it will become a WP:GA. PG Pirate 23:56, 7 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) - PG Pirate 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
Not much to do. Fix these in the next seven days, and I'll do a quick copy-edit and pass that article. Thanks. Nikki 311 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
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 it Palestinianpride ( talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
once again somebody removed it without posting anything thanks a lot jerkface Palestinianpride ( talk) 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/goodspeed-analysis-pakistani-journalist-‘next-target’/
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache%3ACI51yz1nz7kJ%3Aenglish.aljazeera.net%2FNR%2Fexeres%2F737B73AE-EE5D-4C41-8CA2-04B356FBCBC.htm+%22Bhutto+killed+in+suicide+attack%22+site%3Aaljazeera.net&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"Though early reports indicated that she had danced with shrapnel or the gunshots" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.26.247 ( talk) 17:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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 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 ( talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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)
OK, I propose an overhaul of this section on a few accounts.
Thought? If people reject the second proposal, I still suggest the first. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The lead sentence would read better, would sound less stilted, as:
instead of the current:
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)
Anybody else see the vandalism in this section or is it just me? -- 66.215.251.104 ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments This is a well written article that has a few minor errors.
1. It is reasonably well written.
2.It is factually accurate and verifiable.
These few changes, and I believe it will become a WP:GA. PG Pirate 23:56, 7 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) - PG Pirate 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
Not much to do. Fix these in the next seven days, and I'll do a quick copy-edit and pass that article. Thanks. Nikki 311 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
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 it Palestinianpride ( talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
once again somebody removed it without posting anything thanks a lot jerkface Palestinianpride ( talk) 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/goodspeed-analysis-pakistani-journalist-‘next-target’/
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache%3ACI51yz1nz7kJ%3Aenglish.aljazeera.net%2FNR%2Fexeres%2F737B73AE-EE5D-4C41-8CA2-04B356FBCBC.htm+%22Bhutto+killed+in+suicide+attack%22+site%3Aaljazeera.net&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"Though early reports indicated that she had danced with shrapnel or the gunshots" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.26.247 ( talk) 17:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)