Talk:Benazir Bhutto/Archive 1

Benazir was a Shia

By the way their is some one who had edited Benazir Bhutto article,by editing her religion to Sunni-Islam,well if some one of you have done so i kindly request you to remove it from there or either give me permission to do so,becuz ur facts are totally incorrect about this,Benazir was a Shia and Died as a Shia her Namaz-e-Janaza was held two times once in the Shia way cuz of her religion at their home in Ghari Khuda Baksah and later for public satisfaction was held in a Sunni was,same happened with her Father and our Quaid-e-Azam.so please remove your incorrect fact thanks.cuz at one time no one can carry both ideologies together as someone of u have mentioned there! thanks! Paki90 (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence in Bio

I'm a first-time poster; I hope I do this correctly. "Bhutto was the eldest child of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a Pakistani of Sindhi descent and Shia Muslim by faith, and Begum Nusrat Bhutto, a Pakistani of Iranian-Kurdish descent, of similarly Shia Muslim by faith."

The grammar of the latter portion of this sentence is very awkward. I would suggest "and also of the Shia Muslim faith". -KM KMWiki1 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Osama bin Laden

In an interview with David Frost for his (Nov 2nd) Al Jazeera TV show "Over the World", before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto stated that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ (5 mins in)

i cant believe nobody talks about that video. even if she said a mistake, NOBODY TALKED ABOUT IT. its a pretty BIG DEAL for a major political figure like her to state such a thing, even if it was in error! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.195.117 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

This appears. to be a bad translation. English is not Bhutto's first language and I believe her grammar was mixed up. I believe that she meant to say "The man who murdered for Osama Bin Laden" Please note that in the video she stutters the sentence several times, and I think that this is likely because she was having trouble with the grammar. Omar Shiekh has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and there have been several Bin Laden tapes since then where he mentions current events. Therefore, it is not possible that he could have murdered Osama Bin Laden. Also, by examining the context she was describing someone who had dealings with Omar Shiekh in an attempt to discredit the person she was talking about. It's doubtful that she would expect to gain any sympathy to her cause by saying that a friend of Bin Laden's killer would be a bad guy. This video has popped up on youtube and has been used extensively with little explaination by conspiracy theorists to confuse people and to try to suggest that the US government knows that Bin Laden is dead and is covering it up to continue waging the war on terror. I know that certainly Bhutto, being a politician would have known that Sheikh was in US custody, and that Bin Laden had been seen on tape since then. I think perhaps a seperate article or section would be appropriate to explain away this phenomenon, as it appears to be a bad translation.

Chirst Amlighty (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC News have put up a video of the interview on there website in which they edited out her statement in question they did not give any reason why they did so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7070000/newsid_7075800/7075843.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&nol_storyid=7075843&bbcws=2# (Skemez1 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

I think the reason why BBC edited out her statement was that it was a slip of the tongue: she meant Daniel Pearl not Osama Bin Laden... wikipedia: "In July 2002, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national of Pakistani origin was sentenced to death for the abduction and death of Daniel Pearl." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.80.156.125 (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

She told the truth. The man didn't even bother to correct her. Any other excuse is made up bs. --Vehgah (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should say under a headline of controversy. Benazir Bhutto claims Usama Bin Laden murdered by Omar Sheikh and we can provide several sources. The BBC censorship of the sentence makes this even more interesting. /Toros —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.25.221 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Benizer Profile Shouldn't be changed

I have many time re-edited her religious Column many people change it again and agian! She was a Shia-Muslim and some anti-shia's change it again and agian plz stop doing like this!! i would request Wikipedia administrator to take action against those who do false editing and hide the reality!! thanx -Paki90

From mother side she was shia muslim. but i am not sure about her father side. I think the reality is stated in her book "daughter of the east". i have read the book but can't recall the passage about her religion correctly. i will have to go through the book once again.

-FATAL EYES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal eyes (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

hey father was absoloutley a shia. his name is zulfikar, if that isnt proof enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.51.96 (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Someone correct the term Whitehouse in this article......it is "White House" and not Whitehouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.38.234 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Doesn't the following sentence:

first woman head of government in the Muslim world

need some qualification? Razia Sultan, anyone? Maybe saying adding a "in modern times" would help?--iFaqeer 02:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

How about "first woman to be elected as the head of government among Muslim-majority countries." Egalitus 20:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering why there's any need for a qualification. Has there actually been any other female leader of a Muslim country prior to Bhutto? If so, who? --Lee Hunter 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there were many female Muslim leaders in Islam's classical period[1]. Bhutto is the first Muslim woman to be democratically elected as the head of a country. Joomlaw 10:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The IPA representation of the Urdu pronunciation "[bɛnɜziɽ botɔ]" is wrong, isn't it? The Urdu and Sindhi spellings indicate something like [benəzir bʰʊʈʈo]. That's also what is indicated by the Devanagari spelling of her name in the Hindi Wikipedia. Can someone who speaks Urdu or Sindhi confirm?

Benazir is in fact of Persian origin and is a cognate of the words "be" which means 'without' and "nazir" which means ordinary. Benazir in fact means "One of a Kind" in Parsi (Persian). It is pronounced "Bee-NAH-zeer". Aryamehrr (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

be-nazir means "One of a kind" or "matchless". benazir is also a urdu word, that comes in urdu from persian. -FATAL EYES

Photograph

The Photograph in the article portrays the former Prime Minister in a less than favorable fashion, particularly for those in countries with Islamic roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.79.68 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"First" female muslim leader

Regarding the comments about her being the first female muslim leader, she wasn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyembika_of_Kazan . She may have been the first elected female leader, but this does need explicitly stating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.223.87 (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First or not, she is definitely the most powerful muslim woman alive today. User:thegoodson —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate way to describe her is, "the first female leader to lead a post-colonial Muslim state". 151.197.111.89 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Not the first modern female leader, Muslim or otherwise:Try 1975-78 Ibodat S. Rakhimova in Tajikistan (Autonomous Soviet Republic in the USSR. And absolutely not the most powerful women in the Muslim world. What about the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Nigeria, or the Deputy PMs of Afghanistan, Iran, Senegal, or the ex-presidents of Indonesia and Turkey? I am no expert on female Muslim leaders but I know that sentence needs to change.

---

)==Article Lacks Some Clarity, Assumes Reader Has Background Knowledge of Bhutto Family==

There is a reference to her murdered brother being her 'sole surviving brother' but the article says nothing about what happened to her other brothers.

This article makes the mistake of assuming that people already know things about the rest of her immediate family. One should never do this when writing for the public, but should instead assume the audience has no prior or backgrond knowledge of the subject.

I've added a section copied from her father's article, to help claryfy things. --AVM 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I once read, that Benazir's father was a maharadja and designated her to be her successor. This would have been outrageous in that culture, and an insult to her brothers. One of them was apparently married to an Afghan Princess, from which I conclude, the feudal origin of the Bhuttos was not a concoction by some journalist. It is important to notice, I guess, that returning to Bhutto rule is less democratic than it appears; i.e. many Pakistanis elect to be under the traditional feudal ruler. In that context, the alleged corruption of the Bhuttos would be a somewhat 'natural' occurrence because this modus operandi was normal in the feudal system. I feel uneasy when they keep talking about the democratically elected leader, but always leave out that her very presence extends the feudal system. 121.209.48.55 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) --Manzar56 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC) it is indeed tragic for Pakistan & its people that feudals still control the destiny of this nation.Majority of its politicians hail from land owning families & their ancestors were gien large swathes of land by their colonial masters in lieu of serices rendered against their own brothers.these indiiduals hae no right to control the destiny of Pakistani masses ,neither do they hae any concept of democratic alues nor do they practice it within their parties or sphere of influence.They do not hold free & fair elections in their parties & They are non contributory to the taxman! Itisabout time that these land owning families are stripped of their assets & which should be disbursed amongst the tillers of their land.This has been done successfully in other countries ,India our neighbours benefitted greatly by this approach. --Manzar56 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)13-11-07

"The Sassanid princess Purandokht, daughter of Khosrau II, ruled the Persian empire for almost two years before resigning. Also, during the Sassanian dynasty many of the Iranian soldiers captured by Romans were women who were fighting along with the men." [14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_women#Pre-Islamic_Iran Aryamehrr (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Her brothers were assassinated- poisoned and shot. Streona (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Pres

Wasn't she the first woman, period? No!!

And the first Asian?No------------Sirimavo Bandaranaike a Sri Lankan was!!!--Raju1 00:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think she was the first Muslim Women. She was also the first Asian women.

She will always be remembered like godess of Democracy in Indus Valley Region who waged war agains the dark forces. She is etenral in her character. Bhutto family sacrificed many family memebers in the struggling for democracy and humen rights in the country. They will always be remember in the history of Sindh and Pakistan.

And you won't be remembered by your broken English! Gosh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVM (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

remembered for your broken English, not by.Sennen goroshi 14:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a failure to acknowledge that Bhutto deposed the elected President, Vivienne Dinham, after her supporters alleged that the winner had bribed her voters with green gin. It set a precedent for her future political activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Sections of this article are clearly not neutral (i.e. the comment that she didn't do anything positive for the country during her reign). I've tacked on an NPOV header, and I'm not really competent to try and fix this. Ambi 02:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this article says she didn't pass a single piece of major legislation and it has other criticisms. IHT is a reputable publication, essentially the NYTimes http://iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/opinion/edahmed.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that particular line we can do without and is factually inaccurate.I have made some changes to this and added some other info.See if appropriate and if so remove the NPOV when you deem fit.--PrinceA 05:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the article does not have any POV lines and that is why I removed the tag.But if you still feel that way lets hear it.--Sheikhu 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, as the worst of the bias is gone. It still looks like it could do with more on her career as prime minister, though. Ambi 04:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I read the article it seems to me who ever wrote it thought it to be self explanatory (where as it is not).It does not provide information about her times as Prime Minister whereas she has held this office twice.Another thing ,the indecent comment she is the biggest randi (meaning:she is a whore)is not appropriate for anyone to make.It should be removed!!! What is the point of an encylopedia??? It is for sake of information and knowledge,reference ,it is helpful but ruining it this way takes the thrill and enjoyment of looking to gain info cuz once you read something like that you have second thoughts about the truth of the whole article,Know what I mean? Please understand as I wish for other editors to look into this and see what appropriate measures they can take to fix this (pitch in).Thanx--Raju1 00:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's called vandalism, Raju. The moment you see something like that, feel free to fix it. The open-ness of Wikipedia gives it the strength of all our combined knowledge, energy, etc. This is the price we pay for it--and I think it is not a high price to pay. :D

Thanks for writing to me on this.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Ambi's claim that sections are not neutral —the sections are nonexistent. First section it, then NPOV is easier to deal with. Chronological sequence of events is nice, but with larger/growing articles it becomes necessary to split it along personal/professional lines. Sinreg-SV|t 03:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some pro-Bhutto fanatic are infecting this page and are posting propaganda about this failed and corrupt woman. Wikipedia will not help Bhutto get elected so these fanatic should step polluting this page. . I dont want someone posting utter rubbish like "Bhutto enjoys the support of majority of Pakistanis". If she did have such support, Musharraf would be long gone by now. In fact the opposition's anti-government campaigns have been complete failures. The current article(Dec 20) is in horrible state and I am going to clean it up

REPLY: Bhutto doesn't nee wikipedia to get re-elected she is in the hearts and minds of the people of pakistan, they will vote for her and she will win a free and fair election. As far as the pro-bhutto fanatic allicaton, i am a pro- butto as is most of pakistan, but you seem to be an islamic extremeist who is aginst Women in power. You support a dictator jus like all the extreme religious parties.'

Reply to above (30th december 2007): I'm not a voter of the pp, but it's not because i don't like a women leader, it's because once corruption allegations have been made, there will always be doubt in the minds of Pakistani people. musharraf may not have been elected, but he has made the country move forward and has tried to control the people so that an assassination attempt would not happen, but he lifts emergency rule and the whole of pakistan has turned upside down. democracy will hapeen, eventually, but all of us Pakistani's need to unite and peacefully bring about the pakistan Quaid-e-Azam and our ancestors dreamt of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.149.218 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the events of April 16th this year, when Asif Zardari returned, is proff enough of the support Bhutto still recieves. The extent that the Punjab government to stop that event from banning train's and busses also in forcing an rule that banned the freedome of association and assembley. Yet there was still great amounts of people there, this was folloed by police brutality, which people in my university actully had to endur. Suggets there is still a mass of support for this women courrup or not. However as Musharaff has the power of stoping such events from happening and their deletion from the media means that it doesn't matter how much support one has he will remain. All hail Musharraf, may he continue his dictatorship for ever.

Someone has been vandalising this page by constantly changeing the 'Charges of corruption' section to portray the image that she is already convicte. Correct me if i am worng but I am quite sure there hasn't been a conviction. Wasn't the same tacticts used against here father. Wasn;t there cases against him which have been proved politicaly motivated and false today?

Ya, I think you'r right. Isn't is a bit odd thaat all these popular liberal leader Nawaz and Bhutto being the central figures, are always charged of corruuption and dissmissed.

Reply : If Sharif, Bhutto and Zardari were as popular or respected as you claim, Musharraf would be gone long ago. The military has not been used to put down any protest and the media are more free in his government that any other. It is the mass corruption and failure of the Bhutto and Sharif government which are the reason Pakistanis dont trust them. Its also the reason the anti-govt campaigns have been such miserable flops. There is no evidence at all to support your claim that Bhutto and Sharif are popular. Heck they are not even in the country! Both are fugitives from the law.

What law? The one that orderes people to rape women as punishment or the one that refueses to convict rapists?

I am sorry but Musharrah has used force to stop protestes, my father a journalist, was beaten by police on April 16th while covering a peacfull protest he refused to give up his notes. He tried to take it to court but as usual they leagal system did nothing.

Reply: Musharraf does not control every policeman in Pakistan. Regarding the law, there are defective laws in Pakistan, that does not discredit the entire legal system or excuse the crimes committed by the rulers.

Can't you all see how many people were killed in Benazirs' family....it was only because they were Sindhi and Musharraf or any other punjabi can't bear to see that Sindhi's will actually make something out of themselves in this freakin world!!! Thats why he's building KALA-BAHG-DAM, so Sindhis would die of thirst and hunger. They're crops wont grow if the dam is built because the Indus River flows through Sindh!

Reply: Zulfiqar Bhutto had many enemies and the PPP engaged in extra-judicial killings in Karachi. There is no dearth of people who would like to get even with the Bhutto clan. Regarding Kalabagh Dam, Bhutto supported it while she was in office. Your comments on Sindh is garbage.

Besides Musharaff is not Punjabi

Musharraf is muhajir. And the person who wrote that about Sindhis..well..i kind of agree with you because alot of Baclochs and Sindhis have been protesting so the dam won't be built and Musharraf will built it anyway. And another thing, Benazir DID NOT support the Kala Bahg Dam project. She still is trying to stop Musharraf from building it...i would know...I'm related to her!!!

Reply: Human rigts groups have used Asif Zardari return as proof that Pakistan in a crisi concerning political and human rights in the country. The fact that mushrafa had to intervien in his arrival to such an extent proves that the PPP still maintains crediable popular support enough to make him fear Bhutto and her Husmabds return

Also recently NAB has been invesigating Bhutto's activitis outside her term in office how exactly are these actiites related to abuse of power or corruption during her role, this is serves as proof that Bhutto's government didn't engage in any corruption the cases and as Musharraf is desperate to get a conviction inorder to bar her he is now looking in to her exiled years. Well no cases were proved in the past 10 years does he realy expect any new cases to be prvoed now. The extent to which Bhuto's financial and personal affairs have been examined and the fact that not a single corruption verdict has been passed proves her innocence to me and make me feel sick to the stomach that i had ever doubted her.

--Manzar56 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Miss Bhutto's term of office & her tenure as prime minister needs to be addressed in an impartial & neutral manner.Someone should look at her achie ements,especially whether she has been able to use her position & influence to impro e li es of women in Sindh,where she hails from.Women are pre ented from marrying anyone outside their families(land issue) & some are actually married to the holy book-Quran.Is it correct?Has she raised this issue in any forum or tried to free these ladies from their chains of sla ery.I hope that some sane person could answer these questions,dispassionately please --Manzar56 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)13-11-07

Birthday photo

I'm removing the birthday photo which appears to show Bhutto in a short skirt. I suspect the photo is a fake (I can't find anything remotely similar in searches - she always appears in modest dress) and the copyright info is dubious. It is supposedly from the book Benazir Life and Struggle by Nusrat Ameen. Nusrat Ameen is a real reporter but I can't find any evidence that a book by that title actually exists. --Lee Hunter 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lee, I just saw your comment. I, too, came across this questionable picture today and removed it. I wonder who keeps on posting it.--Disinterested 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Lee, I am writing this about the above photo.... Please visit the link below http://www.despardes.com/articles/sep06/20060908-bb-hameed.htm

The writer is a respected contributor to international newspapers and I have contacted him myself to validate the authenticity of the photo. I have also written to the controller of Benazir Bhutto's official website pointing towards this photo but no negation has been received. I have concluded that the photo is authentic. In spite of that I would not encourage posting it untill the person allows this private photo to be used for publication. Oct 20,2006 Loipen

The page states that he is not the copyright owner and that he has no information on whether it is authentic. ("The emailer of the above photograph says it's Benazir Bhutto's...former Prime Minister of Pakistan, during her college (Oxford) days. We are not sure if it's really so or just a digitally modified picture circulating the internet."). --Lee Hunter 14:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again there's an attempt to add this photo to the page. This time the editor makes the improbable claim that it's on the Pakistan People's Party site. I did several Google image searches [2] and was unable to find it there. Again I note that all pictures of Bhutto that I've seen (other than this one) show her modestly dressed and wearing a head scarf. I can only conclude that the people who are pushing this image are doing so for partisan reasons. --Lee Hunter 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a textbook with a GREAT photo of Benazir Bhutto - she is very aesthetically pleasing, especially for a political figure! : P But really - it's a great 1988 photo that should be iconic. Moreover, it should be the featured photo - flanked by officials and guards, she's addressing the public. Unfortunately, I do not have a scanner but I'll upload it once I can! ~~

Please don't! I'm sure it would be a great addition to the article but Wikipedia has strict rules that prevent using any pictures that don't have clear copyright permissions. --Lee Hunter 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lee your assertions of Benazir dressing up modestly are pretty vague. Who defines what is modest and what is not. I would come directly to the point, just have a look at how she was dressed at the 3rd annual womens awards on October 14, 2006 at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York. I am not a moralist but when Benazir can wear a seethrough blouse in front of thousand odd spectators I would describe her dress code as western not eastern or conservative. Her bra was completely visible to all and sundry and left many gasping with surprise at her choice of such bold apparel. What was ironic that she still had the head scarf on. It's been now clear that she wears the scarf as an iconic symbol rather than a choice. I am not trying to defend or oppose anything here, but I feel that the article about benazir is being censored unobjectivley without leaving room for serious and factual journalism. My Kind Regards Santoosh, ASI NewYork, USA

Do you mean this? [3] I suppose it might have left some people gasping, perhaps it would have caused a riot on the streets of Peshawar, but I don't think many people in New York City batted an eye. In any case, I'm not suggesting that she should only be seen in the most conservative dress, only that photographs should always conform to Wikipedia policies regarding the use of photographs (formal portrait-style photos that represent a typical view of the person are used where available, the ownership of the photograph must be clear and the copyright must be explictly granted). The "birthday party" photo met none of those criteria (and was also very much outdated even if was legitimate). That particular photo was also presumably taken in an unguarded moment at a private event and so might also be contrary to WP:BLP --Lee Hunter 02:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Lee I agree completely with the policies that you have outlined regarding posting photos of public figures. No the link you have mentioned does not show what I was pointing towards. Perhaps the Women's World Award website would have the details. I don't want to post it, lest it be taken as an infringement. I am now writing from UAE but two months back in Newyork I myself was witness to the radical attire shifts of Benazir Bhutto and found it rather amuzing and irresponsible on her behalf. After the formal photo session at the dinner party she let go of her scarf and the "chaddar" (oriental shawl) which was covering most of her top during the award ceremony, leaving her sheer top open to view. And yes there were other women more scantily clad than her at the party, but People gasped, because this time it was Benazir Bhutto herself. One more thing, I am from India and have been an NRI for most of my life. Politics in southeast asia is an area which might be some saga from Mars for me, hence I have no vendetta for or against any person(s) who is or has held a public office. I just wanted this article to be more accomodating when it comes to presenting facts about the personal lives of Public Figures. Perhaps you could suggest a better approach. Kind Regards. Santoosh

Mr. Santoosh can you please give me the link for the above party where you saw benazir bhutto.

Please let me know at what address should I send you the link. --Santoosh

Her brother

I added a section called "Shame and Scandal in the Family" about Benazir's fight with her mother and brother between 1993 and '96. The fight made headlines throughout Asia and was a major embarrassment to Pakistan. His murder may have been the straw that broke the camel's back and lead to her dismissal by her puppet president.

It is emminent that the only benficiar of Murtaza Bhutto's Murder were Benazir and Asif Zardari. Murtaza had come to terms with the countries secret agencies (King makers) and was about to replace his sister, Benazir came to know about it and with the help from RAW ([[Research and Analysis Wing]]) of India got her brother murdered, one assasin was killed and the other managed to escape.

Current Picture is Terrible

Current picture is no good, weshould replace it with a nicer looking photo. This is a past prime minister ofa huge country, show some respect.

Why should 'we' do this? You have as much opportunity as anybody 86.4.60.47 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BB's own website

Added link to Benazir's individual website. --bandishhh 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone provide some authentic resource confirming that she is a sunni muslim as mostly Bhutto family is considered to be shia. this gets reaffirmed by her irani mother. I am not starting a sunni/shia rebuttal, just want to know a fact

They are Sunnis! A Shitte would never be elected PM of Pakistan, the conservative mullahs would never allow it. Please stop changing the religion. Raabbasi 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bhutto is a Shia Muslim. She visited Iraq twice during Saddam's era in order to visit the Shia-revered shrine of Imam Husayn. Her family are known to hold Shia mourning sessions, as well as her husband's family, who is also Shia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.12 (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Will you leave the Shia/Sunni religion alone? In Daughter of the East, her autobiography, Bhutto says that her father was a Sunni Muslim and her mother an Iranian Shia. Therefore I believe that it is appropriate to say that she is both Sunni and Shia, and if not, she is neither. 151.197.111.89 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

22:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)221.132.115.164 (talk)While talking about her husband's family,her husband Mr. Asif Ali Zardari is son of Mr. Hakkim Ali Zardari,who called himself a baloch in an interview to GEO channels programm EK DIN GEO KE SAATH,and no Baloch man known as a shia muslim but sunni muslims. Haseeb

Pakistan’s Transition from Shia to Sunni Leadership from "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future" by Vali Nasr

Whose Pakistan People's Party?

The Shi‘is of Pakistan

Frontline club

I'm not qualified to update this article, but Benazir Bhutto was at the Frontline_Club in London tonight (about 5 hours ago, actually) and the wikipedia article was presented to her as part of a question about corruption. She specifically said this article needs updating because the Swiss money-laundering rulings were dismissed/overturned on appeal.

Thought someone might like to check this out and update the article. In the event it isn't true, we can always keep a note on this talk page that she lied at the Frontline club, even though it won't be worth noting in the article! Kayman1uk 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not able to help - I think her appeal is ongoing, and Google didn't come up with anything to say any differently.

I would say though, that the article seems very biased against her. I'm not saying whether anything is factually wrong or not, but given she was a world leader (ie quite a few different things to mention, you'd have thought), it doesn't seem to me to be right that almost exactly half of the article is about unproven corruption allegations against her. I'm not saying these shouldn't feature, but there's far more detail about them than seems necessary, and too much in the opening paragraph as well.

Bhutto claims that her opponents in Pakistan keep coming up with got-up charges against her. Considering that she seems to be permanently fighting court cases and permanently winning, she either has excellent lawyers or there's something in what she claims. Not saying which is true, but think the article should reflect both sides of the thing. --88.109.44.123 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing information from something you saw is called NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH but you already know that. I agree the article should be updated but also CONDENSED. A hundred years from now I don't care if she tittled with Poland or played touchy with arms dealers, these specific details belong in a separate article. A more broad summary of the charges and their significance to HER AS A PERSON is more important. And to add oil to fire, if one day she is absolved of all the charges or whatever, then we have a duty not to incriminate her as if she is still on trial and leave the incriminating documents as an external link to study, but it will not define her entire life if she was dirtying it up in France. As an encyclopedia, WP should remain neutral, objective, and a major part of doing so is looking at the article as an entire piece. .:DavuMaya:. 02:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusing

This article needs to be substantially rewritten - it is out of chronological order, obviously missing large chunks of fact (like what happened to her between 1988 and 1993), and otherwise needs fixing.-67.85.180.72 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in many places uses timelines relative (to what is not clear) eg. "The Pakistani government recently filed criminal" "More recently, she took an" "Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on Monday" 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

How many languages can she speak? She wrote a book in Spanish. She obviously speaks English and Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zybez (talk • contribs) 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

English is her first language. She can also speak Urdu, Sindhi and Spanish. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe she was also able to speak Persian, since her mother was Iranian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.90.91 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is information lacking. The presentation of this article answers no questions on what it is that she has specifically accomplished in her role as a politician and leader. Not to mention as a woman in a Muslim country in such a role. I knew nothing about Bhutto when I found this page, and it still leaves me wondering why all the fuss about her going on right now. All this article seems to indicate is that she is involved in corruption charges. But are they true? How reliable are the resources? Was she a woman who found greatness and tarnished it with greed? Is the corruption wholly her own or her husband's? Was she aware of her husband's business ventures? What kind of marriage does she have? A love match or arranged? Is there room for possibility of her innocence to all charges? While some of my questions are speculation, still the article does nothing to address the facts surrounding her knowledge of the corruption charges and just exactly what it is she has achieved with her position in her country other than angering fellow leaders with her presence. 76.179.96.229 15:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Exile

I already gathered from the comments that this article leaves much to be explained, but can someone tell me WHERE BB was in exile? everything just states she is "returning from exile..." but doesn't say from where!--162.80.36.13 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

She is currently living in Dubai; she had lived in London previously. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is much missing from this article and what is there seems to concentrate heavily on the charges of corruption. I don't necessarily think that any of that information (so long as it is accurate and up-to-date) should be removed; however, I find that the article lacks quite a bit about what she stood for and what, if anything, she was able to accomplish professionally. One might surmise, given that she was a woman politician (presumably) attempting to affect change in an extremely patriarchal government, that the focus of her two terms in office might have been on the subject of equal rights. Indeed, however unsuccessful, she must have at least attempted to affect change in this area. If that was the case, I found no mention of it here. Indeed there seems to be a LOT missing on the subject of what her positions were and what changes she was able to make while in office. I, like most people, know very little about her and when I saw that she had been assassinated, looked to Wikipedia to learn more about her. What causes did she champion? What platforms got her elected? What were her (publicized) opinions on...well, anything? Which (if any) issues did she compromise on? It is difficult to understand or form an opinion about all of the accusations (that are well documented here) that surrounded her political life, without any understanding of what kind of person she was. She was a very famous public figure and I would think that there would be many facts on that subject to report. The typical American (person for that matter) requires very little factual information before forming an opinion. We desire to quickly categorize things. It’s not right or fair, but that’s how we are (typically). Simply put; was she a good guy or was she a bad guy. While we certainly can’t and shouldn’t expect Wikipedia to make those determinations for us, many of us do turn to this site to help us sort out the details so that we can form our opinions based on as much factual data as possible. But you don’t need me to tell you that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.186.32.17 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

What does "non-books" mean? We need a definition of the term in order to evaluate the list of "non-books". Kdevans 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to literary circles, they call self-published books "non-books" because they have not been reviewed nor allowed criticism before publication. Basically it's akin to calling something a manifesto I imagine. But its not just any ol self-published book (scholar works, fiction, newsletters, etc are ok) but say a political essay or critical doctrine of a person, thing, etc, that asserts your viewpoint over it, is a non-book in that you could potentially just write about whatever fantastic delusional thoughts you were having against something w/o sources or an agent to back it. I think the reason all the Non-Books are of middle-eastern whatever origin is because that area of the world does not tolerate publications or criticism against established doctrine. And if that person should not be lucky enough to have an outside publisher assist them, then they obviously have to publish/copy/distribute it themselves, which in the Western world results in a term called a "non-book." .:DavuMaya:. 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of this page

The main picture posted on sept 27 was a photoshopped image of her face on a blonde, immodestly dressed lady.

Said picture has been removed, could someone please upload a reasonable one.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.4.234 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Return to Pakistan

We hope that this section will be a TIMELINE of a sort, meaning current developments will be added to her return to power. As Filipino, however, the situation here in the Philippines is the opposite, since our country eagerly awaits to EXIT and EXILE of our embattled President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

--Florentino floro 10:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "Proseline" is discouraged. --Howard the Duck 12:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As it stands the whole section is incomprehensible. I don't know enough about the return to give an informed opinion, but the article uses phrases like "shadowed by the Quran" and "the security did not threat bombers," and I've got no clue what it's talking about. Can someone more familiar with it fix it? dcd139 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Explosions seems no good here, I'm fairly certain it would be appropriate to use "Assassination Attempt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grsz11 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts next time you comment, that would be appreciated here on the WP community. At this time I'll let the "assassination" sentence stand since news reports have mentioned it but unfortunately its not up to your wild opinion in the future. Please source any assertion you make. Thanks! .:DavuMaya:. 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didnt change it, but, explosions nearby on her return to Pakistan are coincidental a guess. Grsz11 03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If I sign in, its because I love ya

Anyway, I traced some of the edits to the page and I have found that recently, members of both the PPP and the Pakistan Muslim League have been editing this page. I thought I smelled some weasel words.

I do not know enough about Pakistani politics to make edits, but I've put this article up for cleanup and NPOV related issues. Please remember, people, that Wikipedia is not here for political purposes, and all views and non-objective material needs to be stated in a way that shows both sides, written in non-point-of-view format. Scryer_360 18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I am neither any race or religion related to this article nor could I care less who Benazir Bhutto is (who I thought was a man when I read the news), I've decided I am the perfect candidate to objective review and edit this article and so I shall! .:DavuMaya:. 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So by your own admisison, you know nearly nothing about the topic matter, and you consider yourself to be the "perfect candidate to objective [sic] review and edit this article" ... Wow. Only on Wikipedia ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.29.189 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A paramount goal of WP is to involve all voices. I feel that some of the important voices are those who seek the published, sourced, and widely regarded consensual facts. I seek facts found and corroborated in other sources and in this way can I be extremely helpful in this article because I can see what is fact and what is truly just an opinion or a passionate plea. When one may see a bloody impassioned disrespectful massacre, I simply see a massacre with numbers and causes and effects. If you want a sensationalized document, feel free to check the many other free Wiki-type websites out there or make your own website -- thats not what makes Wikipedia a unique product. .:DavuMaya:. 01:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

..Yes only on wiki would you find someone finding the idea that an IMPARTIAL editor would be wrong for an article that has shown excessive political influence in its leanings. He is basically stating his ignorance is his strength as he will not have any pre-conceived issues with the information for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.25.95 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Proficient English

I don't know what policy governs the use of language on WP but I seriously must say that in review of the history log, a lotttttttttttttttttttttttt of people have an extremely poor command of English. Now I don't mean every now and then we blip on a word or mizspl something but I'm talking about the inability to use sentences or capitalize things or even have a short logical train of thought. I'm going to say now, if you can't form a complete sentence and communicate a clear thought in the English written language, whatever color shape size or holy deity you are, then I advise that you refrain from editing this page or you will be mercilessly reverted. This is the English Wikipedia! Did you know we have Wikipedias in other languages! Yay! I welcome our English language learners to our WP community and hope they will enjoy learning about the world through our language. Perhaps they can go to work on improving their Wikipedia in their native language and I welcome the day that the English Wikipedia must rely on translating the international ones to improve its content so that we can truly be a world product. End rant. .:DavuMaya:. 06:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How good are you at English? I have found numerous edits since yesterday with great English command but the worst grammatical and syntactical errors. In addition, erroneous mechanical additions have occurred such as random hyphens. Stop. If you can't use English properly, refrain from editing this Wikipedia and focus on your own mother language because for certain your edits will be reverted. .:DavuMaya:. 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, actually not, that's not how things are done around here. If somebody adds something in bad English, we correct it, not revert blindly. Zocky | picture popups 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of small grammar and syntax corrections. 66.28.178.67 22:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit history, but I'm a little shocked by this. Zocky correctly pointed out the practice of correcting sloppy edits, but above that, I think you pointed out one of the reasons English Wikipedia receives so much attention from those who don't speak the language natively. It's a behemoth compared to the other editions, both in terms of coverage and exposure. Last I checked, Wikipedia was an inclusive collaborative effort anyone could edit; lines like "Go edit your own Wikipedia" (regardless of the intent, which I'm sure was not to be disruptive) come off as almost troll-like. Re hyphenation: If it's spelling differences, the Commonwealth practice of using hyphens where Americans might not is entirely appropriate. End rant rebuttal, I guess. Now someone can come along and tell us to take it somewhere else given this has nothing to do with Benezir Bhutto. I couldn't let it go unchallenged though. Luatha 07:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is really that concerned about calling me a troll or needing to voice their opinion then please direct your energy to helping me improve this article than scanning the Talk pages. .:DavuMaya:. 17:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

== Heritage ==The grand fater of Banazir, Sir Shanavas(he was claiming to Rajput Orgin) was married to Khursheed Begum. Khursheed Begum was formerly Lakhi Bai, born in a modest Hindu family[2]. She converted to Islam before her marriage. Her brothers remained Hindu and eventually migrated to India.

His children included Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and a daughter Mumtaz, who was married to Brigadier Muhammad Mustafa Khan Bahadur[3] of the Sidi clan.

I must admit don't know much about Pakistan's history. Since her comeback from exile to Pakistan and the media coverage about her; I became very interested in Pakistan's history. In such a short time so many wars and bloodshed. It is a pity... Anyway the moment I saw her in the media something looked so familiar. I didn't know what it was first. But her face looked familiar. As an Iranian myself I was then not that surprised reading in a German Newspaper that her mother being actually an Iranian. That made suddenly sense why her face looks so familiar to me. I was hoping to get more information about her heritage in Wikipedia. But this matter is totally suppressed. Why? The other point I would like to discuss is I want to make clear I am not a Shia Iranian. So I am not trying to start a Shia or Sunni discussion. However the truth is the truth and must be told in an encyclopedia. According to many sources her father was also a Shia Pakistani as well as her Iranian mother was obviously a Shia. She has changed her religion later or only covers it in the public to have better chances in elections. Should that not be mentioned in here? Kind Regards Houman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houmie (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care what you think but if you have an article or a source in which states what you assert above then go ahead and edit it into the article and source it. A list of most recognized sources are found at [Wikinews sources] and the format to cite your facts at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Speaking of which source your articles correctly and ensure your facts are supported by your links. I will be link-checking if I find the content doesn't say the same as you assert, it will be gone. .:DavuMaya:. 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Return to Pakistan

I still cannot fathom why this incident must be elaborated in the article:

There is a discrepancy in the accounts between those published in western newspapers and Pakistani tabloid and eye witness accounts of the assasination attempt. Benazir's husband categorically refused to accept suicide bombing thesis and attack by Al Qaeeda and the Taliban. Correspondingly, Pakistani Taliban leader Mehsud denied responsibility and Jamaat Islami, a Benazir opponent announced three days mourning for the dead[citation needed] .

Benazir's associates point to first a grenade attack (small) , then twenty seconds later by huge bombs , one right and and one left of Truck carrying Benazir , this following by a brief burst of gun fire directed at vehicle's roof .The PPP sources claim that yet another non exploded bomb was fixed on bridge which they had already crossed . In other words it was a sure short non suicide assassination attempt .

Some witnesses report there was a sizzling sound which they think was an underground wire signal towards the explosive devices. At least two people on the top of the vehicle were killed. Reportedly Benazir escaped, as she was protected by a 30 inch tall bullet proof lining on top of truck and that she was descending downwards into lift into truck space proper at the time, hence neither shrapnel nor bulleting killed her. Total injured according to PPP sources is 1000 and killed atleast 160[citation needed] .

PPP has lodged FIR but has been cautious in blaming but army circles are deeply concerned and ouster of chief minister of Punjab and sindh is being debated to diffuse public anger.

I have reverted about three times these unsourced inclusions and still the anonymous IPs come at it. It's pointless now, we need an administrator to assist in blocking these people. This section has no longer become a summary of events and it seems I cannot educate these people in understanding what amount of content is appropriate. .:DavuMaya:. 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone appoint you as "an educator"? --AVM 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrupt or Not?

Having read the article, I am still confused -- as would be many readers, I believe -- as to whether or not Bhutto is corrupt.

With so much evidence against her in so many nations, it would seem that she is extremely corrupt.

At the same time, it appears her enemies are quite capable of manufacturing evidence against her.

However, is there not some consensus amoung the experts -- political scientists, world journalists, etc. -- as to whether or not she is actually corrupt, and to what extent she is corrupt?

If so, this article could be much improved by the addition of such material, since, as it is, the matter seems rather ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skb8721 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

- Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to discuss the allegations of corruption, who made/makes these allegations and whether or not they would have any motives to make false allegations. After all, whether they are true or false, the existence of the allegations themselves are fact, and so, can be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.221.237 (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Feminist

Is Bhutto an active feminist? She is tagged as such, but there's nothing about feminist activity or ideology in the article body. I think an expansion is in order. 212.179.71.70 07:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe women's rights in Pakistan is of great concern to her. Kingturtle 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag

I keep wondering, why the 'neutrality' (POV) tag? I have removed such tag: I believe it's useless, until someone points out clearly what the alleged 'dispute' in this article is about. --AVM 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

27/12/07 edit: injuries.

have the stories that she has actually been injured been verified? sources and valid 'news' sites such as bbc dont yet show this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.232.145 (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

bbcamerica

• She was just "... injured in that explosion."

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we should be prepared for a junkload of edits to start nailing this article. We'll need to watchlist it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here's an actual reference, they say it's serious: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSSP26505420071227 Funkynusayri (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just heard on TV that she's dead.--Joydrop (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:25, 27 December 2007 (edit) (undo) 88.245.123.112 (Talk) (→bbcamerica) Newer edit → Line 313: Line 313:

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A senator says "dead".

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation

Interior Minster has said she is dead Samaster1991 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

She's not dead Randomtime (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes she is, according to Sky News. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• She is dead, check BBC. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC News 24 have announced "reports that she has died". Krytenia (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC said wounded [4] Randomtime (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

They've now changed it. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• confirm
• confirmation

• afp

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

?? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

According to 'http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html' she was shot in the neck. Nikolaas69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaas69 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

CNN says she was shot AFTER the attack. 84.131.244.8 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No clear reports people. EDIT: Times of India is also not clear: --212.107.116.244 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News says that too. I've been watching since the story broke, and the news coming in has been reliable. I will add it to the page if it isn't already there. As a note (I don't have enough confirmation on this yet), they also say that there is some "rampaging" going on in the city. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Early AM on NPR's Morning Edition Steve Inskeep announced that she was "at least very seriously injured" by the attacks, and relayed that members of her party were calling her a martyr. NPR.org now says she was assassinated, but is unclear as to what killed her; bomb or bullets. to their story here. Suitmonster (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that as of 12/28, only the Pakistani cabinet has "suggested" that Al-Qaida was responsible for the assassination. However, no known organization has stepped forward to claim responsibility. As such I do not believe this article is neutral, as the introduction says, "On December 28 it was announced that a member of Al-Qaeda was believed to have masterminded the attack." Who believes this and why? That phrase is awfully weasely. to suggested perpetrators

Citation in Assassination section

I've added a cite to a CNN article in the "Assassination" sub-section, as the reference that was there was incorrectly formed and the three links weren't directly related to the incident. They were, however, about Benazir Bhutto, so I commented them out rather than removing them. Someone with more expertise may need to assess them for relevance to the article. the CNN article doesn't confirm death at time of writing. (Actually, I've just reloaded and it has changed to " Report: Bhutto killed in attack"). Hope this is alright.--Kateshortforbob 13:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is awful news. I'll try to be around today to help keep this article updated and vandal-free. Kingturtle (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Shes dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html?ref=world

Death

"On December 27, 2007, Benazir Bhutto was killed by a fatal gunshot wound to the head, with secondary wounds to the neck and chest (http://www.ecanadanow.com/news/world/breaking--benazir-bhutto-assassinated-20071227.html), as she was entering her vehicle to leave a political rally for the Pakistan People's Party in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.[63]" I wikipedia user, 70.160.197.97, killed Bhutto.

CNN claims that she was killed After entering the vehicle and it has not been confirmed whether she dies as a result of gunshot wounds, or from the bomb. The article does not confirm any of this.Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Looks good now. Thank You.Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I eventually substantially reworded the Assassination section, as it is not clear as to whether or not she was killed as a result of the blast itself or the shots fired by the assassin.--Veratien (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have clips of all major networks covering the story, from the initial preliminary announcement of the bombing to the official news of her death. These clips can be used as reference material for anyone interested. Shall I post them here?? Jmccusker (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you posted them on Youtube and then put the links here. Kingturtle (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested in seeing the preliminary announcements. --SHODAN (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I see many conflicting reports online in CNN, NPR, Faux News, and all that good stuff you find on the internet and on the TV. We might as well say "Bhutto got pwned, lol". --Chinese3126 (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really NOT funny, but at any rate, now on to something constructive... Edit Centric (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alas, he's not funny, but he is right. At that point in time the reports were so at odds with each other that it was impossible to know who was correct. Eejits 'correcting' the article every five minutes weren't helping either. --Veratien (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And now the story has hit the news that she did not die from shrapnel nor the bullets, but her head struck the handle of the window on the roof of the car as she was trying to escape the gunfire! [5] --80.220.68.44 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote Bhutto was shot at with an AK-47 is wrong. She was shot at with a pistol. "Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said that while the bomber shot at Bhutto with a pistol, she had no bullet injury. Authorities initially said she was shot, then a surgeon who treated her said she died from the impact of shrapnel on her skull." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59418 Aryamehrr (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know where the AK-47 thing came from. I've not seen it in any reports, and I can't find any references to it in any of the decent News agencies, so I can only assume that someone retrieved it from a certain bodily orifice. --Veratien (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bhutto's warning to GHW Bush and Mubarek

Should this aspect of Operation Cyclone: "Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned of the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, 'You are creating a Frankenstein'" be included or does it have too little weight? What about her similar warning to Mubarek and her unsuccessful attempt to get military help to push the mujadeen out of Peshwar? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried but could not find a Reliable Source for the Operation Cyclone quote. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First head of state to give birth

It might be worth mentioning that she was also the first head of state to give birth. She gave birth to her second child while in office in 1990.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4D81E3AF93BA15752C0A966958260

Here is the New York Times article from the period which talks about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenshegg (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well she clearly was not the first head of stae to give birth though she may have been the first to do so while in office, and indeed the first to be pregnant in office, but your link does not support your statement. We need a reliable source talking about this specific issue for it to be included. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are monarchs not heads of state? --Elliskev 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And was she ever head of state anyway? given that Pakistan has a President. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, she was the head of government. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a difference. Elizabeth II of England is clearly a head of state and was pregnant while being so but equally clearly she has never lead a government, it may well be that Bhutto was the only government head up till now who was pregnant and gave birth while being leader but in order to mention it here we need a reliable source that verifies this. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Death comment

Benazir Bhutto was leaving an election rally, whlist in the car that was taking her away she stood up through the sun-roof, to wave to fans. She was then shot in the neck by a terrorist, moments later that terrorist blew them selves up killing 20 other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4CHRUL3S (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Construction/syntax alert: In the article, the phrase "A suicidal assassin reportedly fired shots in Bhutto's direction just prior to detonating an explosive pellet-ridden vest, killing approximately 22 people", would be better expressed as a "...pellet-LADEN explosive vest..." ie: It's not known that the pellets were explosive, and the term laden more precisely describes the fact of containing pellets, over ridden. 68.228.80.100 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Could someone add a note to this article to comment on the word Mohtarma - as used in front of her name on the official web site. Thanks--User:Brenont (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a Urdu word for courtesy title similar to Ms or Madam in English, strictly used before the name of a woman.Capo 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capo975 (talk • contribs)

youngest

shouldn't the fact that she was the youngest elected leader of a muslim country be mentioned next to the fact she was the first female leader of a muslim country - in the top intro/summary? 70.55.85.92 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan Watch...

Due to the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto, it's important that we watch the unfolding events in Pakistan surrounding the elections, the current social and political climate, and the eventual repercussions, keeping in mind that Pakistan IS a nation with a nuclear armament, a significant Taliban presence in its lawless western mountains, and in a state of turmoil as of now. The assassination of former PM Bhutto is sure to have far-reaching consequenses... Edit Centric (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Today something of Hope and Grace died in the world. It died in the form of a crazed assassin murdering Benazir Bhutto. For me, she represented hope & grace in a country that is quite poor and will likely remain so for a very long time. I'm not Pakistani, nor am I Muslim, but when I heard that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today I felt very bad for her and very bad for the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

CNN coverage is currently commenting on just how this event will effect relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and stability in the region... Edit Centric (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While the assassination is undoubtedly tragic, it is a bit of poetic irony. Bhutto helped hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban. These were young thugs who had grown up in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation of their homeland. She knew full well what complete lunatics they were, but she opted to pass the buck along rather than dealing with them while they were still in their nascence. It is thus no small degree of kismet that she should meet her death at the hands of the rabid hounds she let out of the kennel. That said, her death certainly removes a pivotal character from the Pakistani political stage, and will likely lead to more death and carnage. Truly a sad day in the history of the world. --King ravana (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

current box

shouldn't this have this box: ?

70.55.85.92 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

YES!! I tried to do that, but another editor reverted my edit...Edit Centric (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh, please no. Two large ugly boxes on top of the article looks really bad, and the event article is already prominently linked in the assassination section. henrik•talk 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We only need one box to notify readers and editors. Kingturtle (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, that's why I didn't replace it a second time, because that makes more sense. I'll keep a watchful eye on that one for now... Edit Centric (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this one? I think this article is watched enough that a link the the administrators noticeboard is unnecessary. Please feel free to improve the wording. henrik•talk 23:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That one definitely works. Edit Centric (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Should a standard template be created for this? (combo recent-death and current-related box) 70.51.8.131 (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, we'll revisit that once things stabilize here... Edit Centric (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

redlasso.com videos?

It does not seem to me that the videos from redlasso.com are a good idea for the long-term. We seem to have about a half-dozen that cover breaking news from NBC/ABC and I think that they should be removed. Surely, there are text-based reports that support the assertions in the body of our text.--Cokeabout (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find them (ABC/NBC/CNN/FOX/AP/REUTERS), might be a good idea to replace the vid links with more stable, long-term refs... Edit Centric (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Time of Death

Can someone please recheck the time of death? 6:16 pm PST doesn't make sense. Probably should be PKT for Pakistan Standard Time. PST is used for Pacific Standard time and could cause ambiguity problems. --Davjosmes (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha covered. Edit Centric (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Recommend Locking the Page before it is vandalized.

   03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)hunterbick 12/27/07 9:20PM CST

On a side note, can someone check the time of death under the sectiontion Assasination? In the second paragraph, it says "She was pronounced dead at 5:15 p.m. local time at Rawalpindi General Hospital.[77]" Shouldn't that be 6:16 PM? Thanks. DF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.255.117 (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

over elaboration on assasination details on first column?

I'm not exactly active in the wiki editing scene, but I think the first column has too long a paragraph regarding her recent assassination. It's nearly half the column. There might be alot of news running around now about her death, and some people would feel the need to elaborate more on it.

Just my thought. Leaving it to you guys. I'm not going to touch it myself, and i could be wrong (Luzzio (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Citations are not matching claims

It appears that the websites being cited are being updated so they no longer match the claims made in many instances. This is becoming a big mass of confusion as there are so many citations that are not supported. What can we do about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBhounder (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do your best to keep up with the changes, but don't panic. We're all working together, and eventually we can get the citations right. It might take days to get it right. Maybe weeks. Even then, the fixes we make may suffer from changing information on URLs. Citation breakdowns will not topple Wikipedia. We're keeping track of when URLs were retrieved, and that's because URLs change through time. All we can do is our best. Kingturtle (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I noticed even the ones with retrieval dates have changed. I'm not panicing though, it just seems like a lot of work. Although it's good to know that others are aware and are keeping track. :-) BBhounder (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

mergefrom Funeral of Benazir Bhutto

Of course. The funeral its self is not a topic that requires a separate article altogether, whereas the assassination, and international reaction are. (These two should ALSO be merged at some point.) Edit Centric (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Funeral got merged into the assassination article.--Cokeabout (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there should be mention of the funeral here, since its her funeral. We have an assassination section, even though there is an assassination article. 70.55.86.232 (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

family

Family section does not refer to any children she may have. It is my understanding that she has children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.235.237 (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Her NNDB profile was updated today and they list no children. Jimbo may not want to acknowledge them as a reliable source, but they are rarely wrong about such facts.--Cokeabout (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I watched an interview with one of her associates on BBC who said she had several children. Also, watch the talk section on this very page called "First head of state to give birth". Funkynusayri (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

She definately has three children. You can find thousands of sources for this easily (ex: [6]), including the NNDB profile which shows "one son, two daughters". They are also mentioned in the current version of the article: "The couple had three children: Bilawal, Bakhtwar, and Aseefa." Kuru ^talk 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. NNDB often lists adult or notable children on separate lines. It was as a parenthetical comment on the "husband" line. Sorry.--Cokeabout (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thread

بینظیر بھٹ doesn't exist as a redirect to here. 70.51.10.206 (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. We also have بینظیر بھٹو as a redirect. --Aude (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Our neutrality policy demands we be neutral, yett his article gives more detail about the corruption charges than about her times as PM, this is clearly in violation of our neutrality policy which demands a neutral and fair approach to this woman. Not sure how we can sort this one but we do need to. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

While the corruption charges are certainly relevant and well-known, I agree that we may be devoting a little too much space to them at the moment. (Compare the article about her husband, likewise charged with corruption, which has much less about it; although his article is also much shorter than this one.) Ideally, we would considerably expand the section on her time as Prime Minister and political career, since that's the reason she's notable in the first place, and ought to have the most 'weight'; as a more realistic alternative, perhaps we should spin the 'corruption charges' section off into a new sub-article. Does that strike anyone as a good idea? Or does this article have enough sub-articles already? Terraxos (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Either could be a good idea, obviously the best solution is to expand the PM section but if we are unable to do so (I certainly am) then splitting the corruption section off would be the best solution, ideally into an article covering both her and her husband. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

the corrpution chanrges should nbe in her own page not here.User talk:Yousaf465 05:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Exile

Do we really have no information about where she spent her exile? As its lack is glaring. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it was in the opening but i have now put a sentence about it ion the Exile section. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In March 2003, she was living in Dubai, with her children and mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Kingturtle (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just removed something that said she was living there from 2004, which I removed as contradictory. I'll try and find some sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All my pre-2005 sources have evaporated from the web :( Kingturtle (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If possible, keep all exile information under the Exile section that is already there. :) Kingturtle (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a bit because it was contradictory. Having looked for some refs allt eh info I could find was also contradictory. We should at least try to be consistent. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The details of exile rarely important from a historical point of view.--Cokeabout (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death?

Cause of death was shrapnel, not gunshot, according to treating surgeon; alternative causes reported by Pakistani Interior Ministry

CBC News is 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

Is this being reported elsewhere? --Rrburke^(talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawn quotes The Pakistani Interior Ministry to the same effect:

Flying shrapnel caused Benazir's death : Interior Ministry

--Rrburke^(talk) 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Now they are saying she died not from gunshot or shrapnel but because she bumped her head on the roof of her car! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right Harry. Therefore the description of the assassination should be edited as follows: “…Bhutto was killed while entering a vehicle upon leaving a political rally for the Pakistan People's Party…” should be “…Bhutto was killed upon leaving a political rally for the Pakistan People's Party…” and “The assassin, who was on a motorcycle, took this opportunity to shoot her with his Kalashnikov…” should be “The assassin, who was on a motorcycle, took this opportunity to shoot at her with his Kalashnikov…” and “The bullets hit her in the neck and chest and she fell back into the interior of the vehicle.” should be “The bullets missed her and caused Bhutto to dive back into the car. She then hit her head, apparently with great force, against the handle of the sunroof and broke her skull. As no other wounds or injuries were found on her body this seems to have been the direct cause of her death.” Peter de Jong I 18:07, 28 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter de Jong I (talk • contribs)

The Associated Foreign Press is reporting that Benazir Bhutto was not killed by the explosion or gunfire that occured at the time of her death. According to the Pakistani Interior Ministry, Bhutto died from a skull fracture received when her head struck against the lever of her car's sunroof as she tried to shelter inside the car. Found at Yahoo.com. Suitmonster (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the CNN link: Bhutto died after hitting sun roof —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter de Jong I (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Such details belong on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. If the matter ever becomes non-controversial, then we can mention it here, but with surgeons and the Ministry inconsistent, I doubt that either will back down anytime soon.--Cokeabout (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the details. But, there is going to be conflicting reports from the media for a while. This happens all the time with breaking stories involving political figures. In addition, the media is trying to be the first to publish their findings, which are more likely false, misleading or inconclusive. As a poster said to me yesterday, this will all level out when the actual accounts are established and we all need to be keen on updating the sources. BBhounder (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey! As I'm going to be out of town this afternoon (PST), once we get a FIRM causa mortis, could someone pop over to the 2007 article, and clarify it under December 27, for the Bhutto entry? Kham-sam-nida! Edit Centric (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC has shown footage of the assassin's gun, which is an automatic pistol. However the Government also says that 5 police died in the explosion, who presumably had handguns. There will be no post mortem as her husband has refused it.

Streona (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC footage shows a man in the crowd firing a handgun. I don't see anyone on a motorcycle - why does this article mention an assassin on a motorcycle? The BBC article[7] says:

A surgeon who treated her, Dr Mussadiq Khan, said earlier she may have died from a shrapnel wound while Ms Bhutto's security adviser, Rehman Malik, said she had been shot in the neck and chest.

Farooq Naik, a senior official in Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, said the government's explanation of her death was a "pack of lies".

"Two bullets hit her, one in the abdomen and one in the head," he told AFP news agency.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On Jan1, 2008, Ministry backtracks on Bhutto sunroof claimsPeter de Jong I (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the gunman fired at least FOUR shots, not three: video of gunmanPeter de Jong I (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC promoting Bhutto?

Am I totally mistaken? The BBC's coverage of Benazir Bhutto had always been tantamount to patronising the lady; she seemd like its protege and a vehicle for easy access to eminent people. It seemed that Ms Bhutto could run along, at any time to the corporation and complain about anything she liked over Pakistan. It seemed the lady was more in tune with her Oxford buddies of the British establishment than to Pakistan's political realities. Her return to the country seemed to have more to do with her 'Oxbridge social circles' than a sound assesment of the risks to her, but especially to innocent bystanders... I suppose those accolites and BBC correspondent with free access to her must now be pushing hard to publish their books of her. Tragic. Politis (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This is a forum for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussions relating to Benazir Bhutto. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rrburke, I agree with you. I was simply trying to see if someone had any relevant information on those links because I did not wish to place them in the main section. Politis (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

International reaction section

It's okay to have a separate article for International reaction, but that doesn't mean we can just strip the section to a bare couple sentences, as Cokeabout did in this edit. It needs to have a representative sampling of important leaders' quotes. I have brought several quotes back (not to say these are necessarily the absolute best to have) that I believe are fairly representative. Superm401 - Talk 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not object, but I hope that the bulk of the material remains on the more specific page and that we ensure that what is on this page is on the "international reaction" page as well. I am also of the opinion that references to such information on this page is not necessary because it is suppposed to summarize what is on the other page, but I plan to take no further action on the matter in the short term.--Cokeabout (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another comment: while the reactions of world leaders is rather easy to cover (it being quite predictable and well-publicized), I would like to see a little more text about that reaction inside of Pakistan because I think that that is more important.--Cokeabout (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes another comment: So right now, the "international reactions" section adds footnotes 94-98 which are all probably redundant with International reaction to the Benazir Bhutto assassination. That is five extra footnotes that are redundant. As long as the number does not grow again to, say, above ten, then I guess I do not care.--01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokeabout (talk • contribs)

I agree that the bulk should be only in the other article, but we need to keep a readable summary here. The two short sentences (with no evidence) you left were not a sufficient summary. Also, I would welcome more information about reaction within Pakistan. In fact, I have already added the Sharif mention. Superm401 - Talk 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is Clinton's reaction the only reaction of a U.S. presidential candidate referred to in the "International reaction" section? Now Bhutto's murder becomes propaganda for Clinton? Moe (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. i removed it. Reactions should only be of heads of state and their office, and heads of international organizations, and their offices. Kingturtle (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That limitation makes sense, though I would consider exceptions on a case by case basis. I don't think any presidential candidate or senator should be included. I'm going to do a little trimming right now, as the section is quite large. Superm401 - Talk 09:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Feared for her life – security had been dminished.

Pakistani Norwegian politician Amir J. Sheikh (of the Conservative Party of Norway) spoke with her by telephone on December 24. He told TV 2 (Norway) in today's 21:00 news that she said she feared for her life and she said that her security had been diminished. I'm not following this scene too closely so I don't know how significant this piece of information might be. __meco (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that she had refused additional security that Musharaff had offered in the wake of the first attempt back in October. If so, it would seem a bit hypocritical to blame the government for the subsequent lack of protection. --King ravana (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that would be a case for others to comment upon. __meco (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For someone supposedly concerned about security, standing up from a bomb-proof car shows a serious lack of judgment on her part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of cars destroyed in the aftermath by demonstrators

Hello,

I edited the article, it stated that "..since the assasination, around 500 cars have been burnt." I changed it to read "..around 250 cars..", but I didn't cite it. I found the information in the following CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.friday/

I didn't think it was a significant enough change to add a whole new citation, which, incidentally, seems to be already cited by item #84 in the list.

Weasel5i2 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death can apparently determine "Martyr" status

Wolf Blitzer's CNN program just showed the gun 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) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether she was killed by bullets, or by shrapnel, or by the shock wave of the explosion causing her to violently bang her head into her car, in all those theories her death was caused by the actions of the assassins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto page changes from intial reports of fact to "what they're saying now"

SENISfIEND (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Dec 28 2007 7:33pm EST

I have experienced this before and I'm sure others have too, and it's constantly happening on wikipedia. When huge stories like this arise, wikipedia will have the information right away with all the initial reports of what happened. Then just one day later, the information that was there is not there anymore. Instead it is replaced with the government "official reports" which are lies and fabricated truths.

I didn't read the whole page, I just read what interested me. Coincidentally, that was the information that was changed after one day. If information from the world changes after one day, instead of deleting or removing the original initial information why not simply add the "new" information to the older information. I don't see the need to remove or replace the old information. But if it is removed, don't think readers won't come back to the page looking for that information again, or they have forgotten what they've read here.

On the 27th, I read here that:

"Early reports from the hospital stated that Bhutto had a bullet in the back of the neck that damaged her spinal cord before exiting from the side of her head. Another bullet pierced the back of her shoulder and came out through her chest. Bhutto was given an open heart massage, but the main cause of death was damage to her spinal cord." from this page; http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:iixA7JT2m2wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto+Benazir+Bhutto+spinal+cord&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

On the 28th, the news reports that the President of Pakistan stated that she wasn't shot, and she died from hitting her head. So naturally I go back to wikipedia to read the info I had read earlier. Only to find the info I read yesterday was missing. The page that resulted from my same search words had been changed. my search words were her name in the wiki search box. "Benazir Bhutto"

I tried to find where I read she was shot. I remember it because it was described in detail. Where the bullets entered and exited. That information was missing. So I'm questioning myself. Where did that info come from if not from wiki cause I couldn't find it anymore. All that was left was how the original info was fabricated.

I remember wiki mentioned her spinal cord was broken and that's why she died. So I googled "Benazir Bhutto spinal cord", the wiki page came up, but only viewable when I pressed on the "cached" button. The original page had missing information.

This isn't the first time I've experienced this on wiki. This is why I question the information I read from here from now on. It also happened one time I was reading information regarding the World Trade Center, and the conspiracy's behind it. I remembered some information I wanted to read again to refresh my memory and the info was missing.

I always thought wiki offered an objective view of information regarding certain topics. Now they have put the thought of fabricated, misleading, missing, untrue information on this site that mix in with facts. Put the untrue, rumored facts on a different page stating what they are. Put the true facts on the original page. How difficult is that? Now original pages are filling up with lies, and facts are disappearing. wow... they even have wiki conformed.

This is going to far... The government of Pakistan is notorious for altering reality in official reports. Both sides of this should be included, if nothing else... --Electrostatic1 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a history link on the page for a reason. If you want to read things that people have put on Wikipedia without verifiable sources (and thus any actual connections to reality), as you seem to want to do, you can use that. It's a more effect way than using the Google Cache.John Nevard (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What other side? Who else knows anything for sure other than those in Pakistan? Yes, there were journalists there who were not Pakistani goverment, but it's still very confusing. Please see below. BBhounder (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SENISfIEND, what just are the "facts"? Who determines them? All that is going on at the moment is journalism. That is all we have to go on. BBhounder (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What other side??? That she was shot through the back of the neck... That's a rather important claim. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you want to mention an old version of the article, link to the permalink, not Google cache, which can change or expire. Second, if something was removed inappropriately, say what it is exactly (and who removed it if you like, which is public), and let's discuss adding it back. Finally, we can do without the long meandering comments about "lies and fabricated truths."; we're trying to improve the article, not complain about the government. Superm401 - Talk 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree something needs to be done, but what?

(I had an edit conflict before while I was commenting on the "Martyr" comment, so I'll just post it here:)

• I believe this is going to be a huge problem. As when the news broke, the reference links, while staying at the same URL, had different content throughout the day, and days. Then, right when the news came out that it was a fractured skull that caused her death, I was very skeptical of ANY news reports. As everyone should be. Only the doctor who examined her knows for sure -- I think anyways. We can not be sure of the verifiblity of any reports as of now.

• With all the political and religious strife in the region, and no autopsy presumably, how will we know for sure? What to do? I propose we write the article (if at all) not as fact, but prefacing claims as being reported. ie: "it has been reported by X that her death was caused by hitting her head...(1)" rather than, "Her death was caused from hitting her head...(1)". (Just a thought) I predict a lot of speculation, bloated, aggrandising and false reports for quite a bit. Although, I have a problem with an encyclopaedia acting as news source rather than an educational source in any way. All that is being done here is "reporting", and from quickly changing news sources at that...and believe this is not what an encyclopaedia is to be. So, I may be biased. BBhounder (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What we have to do is just report what the news (reliable sources) say. Since Wikipedia doesn't do original research, we can't exactly list events "as they happen" because that would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Unless, of course, we find a reliable source that lists the events "as they happened". So if we find a reliable source that lists all of the speculations, conspiracy theories and such, we can reference that and not do the original research ourselves. This is only natural since this issue is in the news right now and the national hysteria in Pakistan will give rise to endless speculations, contradictions, conflicting reports and so on. Best thing to do is just report facts while avoiding the violation of WP:SYNTH. Hope that helps, Ekantik ^talk 01:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I suppose there's no reason why there cannot be a section or sub-section that discusses the conspiracy theories. That is, if any reliable sources are reporting conspiracy theories. Here's a good article on this issue: Bhutto Conspiracy Theories Fill The Air from TIME magazine. Ekantik ^talk 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right that we're an encylopaedia not a news source. Hence we definitely should not be including details that were initially reported since they are nearly always wrong as this case has shown. We should go with what sources say in the days to come, not with what what they may say in a few days time. If you believe there is some big conspiracy involving all the news media of this world, I suggest you do your own research about the 'truth' and it you can prove your claims I'm sure you can get it published somewhere and get enough attention that we will mention it. I suspect thought if you actually research this you'll find the reason why the initial details are often wrong is because journalists rely on less then reliable sources (sure the mother of the uncle of the cousin of the husband of the maid of the brother of the janitor in the hospital may have a story, it doesn't mean the story is reliable) Nil Einne (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How will we know for sure? In the end, Wikipedia isn't about knowing for sure, necessarily, it is about reporting what has been reported. If different sources conflict about what happens, this article should report the conflicting reports. If older source prove to be wrong, those citations and references should be removed for newer reports that correct the mistake. If there is a conspiracy, we as editors cannot simply put our two cents into the article. Conspiracy theory information must also come from other sources. Wikipedia has a number of articles about conspiracy theories - all of which use outside references (see 9/11 conspiracy theories, New World Order (conspiracy theory), Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, etc. Kingturtle (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories??? Give me a break. The news report linked to from the PPP's own web site is adamant that the doctor who operated on her found a bullet in her neck. [8] [9] The report that it was not a bullet did not come from a doctor, or the PPP, but the Pakistani Interior Ministry. [10] I believe that the discrepancy is noteworthy. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with the conspiracy theories, but what you just wrote -- That Wikipedia reports on what is being reported. If it's not about research into facts, but only reporting on what has already been reported in the media, then why is this called an encyclopaedia and not just another news publication? I've pointed out the problem with the media, such as in cases like this. In that it is often wrong and/or conflicting -- especially when it is breaking news. I guess you didn't read my first posting. But that was my concern...the inaccuracies and changing of the "published" sources which may not at all be reliable. BBhounder (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, imo, that you are almost asking people to ignore this event until it enters history books. ... I think it should be written something along the lines that the PPP is directing people to a news report saying that she was shot in the neck, but the Pakistani Interior Ministry is on the record saying she was not. Just write down what happened and when. (By "what happened" I mean what was published, by whom, and in what order, and what the official positions of the involved parties currently are. This is why I am slightly irked at calling differing reports from the PPP and the Interior Ministry as a "Conspiracy Theory." The reports differ. That is not a theory. We might want to simply write it as such. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was directed to this page from the assassination of Bhutto talk page, and frankly I don't understand what is being argued about. If you find something verifiable about this assassination, add it. If it comes from a certain source (ie gov) or if it is only being reported from one media outlet, preface it with the name of that organization. Use common sense. Joshdboz (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The catch is there should be no original research in Wikipedia. In other words, we are simply putting here what has already been researched. Because this is a current event, that which has already been researched comes in the form of news reports. But it could also come in the form of essays and books. I agree with the notion that different points of view and different reports of what happened should all be encapsulized here. And I take back my conspiracy theory remark. I didn't mean to insult anyone. Kingturtle (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying to ignore the event at all, but to be cautious of the different reports and what is included in the article. I'm not suggesting "original research" at all. That's just it. The claims are being written as facts and the problem being is the media has changed from previous reports when it was reported that the doctor said she was killed by a bullet that hit her spine through her neck and out the side of her head, and one in the chest. Now they are reporting what the Ministry is saying to to the media -- that she was killed by a fractured skull when her head struck the side of the sun-roof. This should be in the article as to who said what about whom. And tread lightly when reporting what the government says, in that, instead of saying that's how she died, but that's what they're telling people. IE., X says she was killed by a bullet, while Y says she died from a fractured skull, etc. Or whatever is being reported and by whom. Not just stating anything as if it is fact supported by a reference link, but also including who said what in the content in the article, supported by the references. Do you see what I'm saying? BBhounder (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Joshdboz (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That was what I was trying to get across, thank you. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case it should be added that on Dec 29, 2007 one of the Al-Qaeda leaders, Baitullah Mehsud, declared his organisation was not involved. He claimed the assassination was the result of a political conspiracy that involved the Pakistani government, the military and the intelligence services. Peter de Jong I (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To apply the Watergate axiom of "follow the money", the sources need to look at who benefits from her assassination. That will narrow the field of who was behind it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The photo of the "knob" on the sunroof shows a bolt protruding stained with blood, which could have impacted into one side of her head to form what might look like a bullet hole, but only a post mortem can show. Musharraf favours this but it is up to the family.

Streona (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the BBC ran the actual footage of the shooting... She was back in the car dying before the explosion even went off. Also, the man indicated as the suicide bomber was not the same man who holding the gun. Also, the family did not have the power to stop an autopsy. The police went into the hospital and ended it. Musharraf offered to exhume the body under full government control to help "put the matter to rest". (after the civilian hospital doctors had already been denied the ability.) --Electrostatic1 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda denies Bhutto killing: "We don't strike women"

Interesting thing about the blame game, the Pakistani government linked Pakistani militant Baitullah Mehsud but they denied it. This story should be mention in Bhutto's page.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22985267-2,00.html

Bhutto aide says she bathed body, saw bullet wound in head

"There was a bullet wound I saw that went in from the back of her head and came out the other side."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22985548-23109,00.html

58.165.140.167 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Funeral

This article should have a section on the funeral. 70.55.86.184 (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

mergefrom Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

• It has been suggested that Bilawal Bhutto be merged into this page or section. (Discuss here)

Not needed, he's a person and son of Benazir Bhutto but should have he's own article too, like the rest of the family. --Kanonkas Take Contact 14:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template {mergefrom| Bilawal Bhutto Zardari}} commented out: It was designed not for the talk page, but for being placed on the article, leading to misdirected "discuss" locations. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As Bilawal Bhutto Zardari may well be the next leader of the PPP, he should have his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatatjohns (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Coll

If someone has the time and wherewithal, Stephen Coll needs to be started. Kingturtle (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reaction in Pakistan

The "Reaction in Pakistan" section is pretty meagre. There's a lot more going on in Pakistan than just that ! How about adding some up-to-date info like:

On Dec 29, 2007 the Pakistani Ministry of Internal Affairs said the uproar following the death of Benazir Bhutto claimed 38 victims and caused billions of rupees in damages. In the riots 178 bank offices, 72 train cars and 18 train stations were destroyed, as well as over 900 shops and offices and hundreds of cars. At least a 100 prisoners escaped. Thousands of people took to the streets to express their sorrow and grief. At Bhutto’s mausoleum in Garhi Khuda Bakhsh a 27 year old man was shot by two masked men in a car after he had publicly expressed his admiration for Bhutto. In the city of Hyderabad security officers shot at about 400 demonstrators of Bhutto’s PPP who threw stones and tried to enter an oilfield. Two demonstrators were killed. In Rawalpindi the police used teargas against about 3000 demonstrators who tried to break into the house of a former government official. In the city of Lahore about 10,000 people took to the streets to pay their respects to Bhutto.

On Dec 29, 2007 muslim fundamentalists denied they were involved in the assassination. A few days earlier the Pakistani government blamed al-Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud, but Mehsud’s spokesperson said muslim fundamentalists would never attack women. He said the Pakistani government was involved themselves and accused the government of a political conspiracy. Many Bhutto supporters share this view. They expect the contradictory reports on the cause of death will create more unrest. President Musharraf said he would take all measures necessary to prevent looting and to maintain law and order.

The national election committee stated that in Sindh nine polling stations were burned down. The violence also delayed preparations for the January 8 election. The roads in Sindh were littered with burning vehicles. In Karachi many shops and restaurants were burned down. In the rest of the country roads were quiet, and businesses, gas stations, and schools remained closed. Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif stated he will boycott the election. Bhutto’s PPP will meet on Dec 30, 2007 to decide on participating in the coming election. At the meeting Bhutto’s son will read a special statement his mother left for her party in case of her death. Peter de Jong I (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Certain Islamic Militants-such as Lashgar-e-Jhangvi- appear to specialise in attacking women. Others attack buses full of children and one of the 21/7 bombers attempted unsuccessfully to blow himself up next to a woman with a baby buggy, so protestations to the contrary might be taken with a pinch of salt. Streona (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You’re right. The strange thing is, Bhutto had a similar misconception about islam. After the first attempt on her life she said: “True muslims will never kill me. A true muslim knows islam forbids to attack women. If he does, he will burn in hell.” Off course, if Bhutto had read the Quran, the hadidth, as well as Muhammed’s biography, she would know Muhammed had women killed. And if she really knew her own country, she would have acknowledged that more than often women in Pakistan are being raped and murdered in accordance with the sharia and Pakistani law.Peter de Jong I (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On Dec 28, 2007 and in response to Bhutto’s death, American presidential candidate Hillary Clinton asked Pakistan for an independent international inquiry similar to the Hariri Tribunal that investigates the assassination of Libanese prime minister Hariri in 2005. The Pakistani government declined, claiming foreigners will not sufficiently understand the internal situation in Pakistan.

On Dec 30, 2007, government party PML-Q announced it will suspend its election campaign and asked for postponement of the Jan 8 elections as it will be difficult to campaign in the present political climate. Spokesperson Tariq Azim also suggested postponement would be in the interest of the opposition party PPP as they need to sort things out first.Peter de Jong I (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On Jan 2, 2008, the national election committee in Islamabad announced the elections will be held on Jan 18, 2008

Also on Jan 2., 2008 French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner met with President Musharraf in Rawalpindi and offered EU expertise to assist in the investigation of Bhutto’s death. Musharraf called the offer “interesting”. Kouchner also handed Musharraf a letter from the French President Nicolas Sarkozy in which Sarkozy described Bhutto’s death as “a terrible event”. After reading the letter casually Musharraf said “I could not agree more”. Peter de Jong I (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious potential POV

What did this woman accomplish in two terms as the Prime Minister of Pakistan? We do not really get into that. We should. We cover the graft and scandal OK but not what made her *good* for Pakistan? Was she able to implement any lasting change? Any programs or policies that survived long after her tenure? She left no clear successor within the PPP? We should search for concrete results from her during her time in power because after you get beyond her beauty and academic accomplishments, those accomplishments during her time in power are her true, lasting legacy. Unless her destiny is to be remembered as a martyr.--Cokeabout (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed very interesting. Her obituary at the Telegraph site should furnish some details in this regard. I expect obituaries in other RS's will follow the same tone. Ekantik ^talk 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And here's the BBC obituary. Ekantik ^talk 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stunning evidence shown by CNN! And Taliban denying so do Al Qaeda

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.

Video - http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/2660784.cms

First photos of Benazir Bhutto's assassination: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/First_photos_of_Bhuttos_assassins/articleshow/2661553.cms 2 men wearing sunglasses.

Here is taliban giving a phone conv. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3DFBFF6A-8916-4F25-8EC3-B3D695365371.htm

Al - Qaeda denying it: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Al-Qaida_leader_Mehsud_denies_killing_Bhutto/articleshow/2660344.cms --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protected Article

I attempted to remove the statement ("citation needed") that the assassin had attacked on a motorcycle, which the videos clearly do not support, but it turns out to be semi protected. If this is the case can someone with access try to keep up with the events more closely - either by substantiating or deleting. Especially regarding the alleged involvement of the Lashgar-e-Jhangvi. Streona (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You’re right. The assassination section of this article seems a bit of a mess. Most of the statements are clearly untrue. And important information has been left out, as this discussion section shows. Please improve folks !Peter de Jong I (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandits

There seems to be nothing on this page about Bhutto's relation to the Kashmiri Pandits during her presidency and the fact that she aided the genocide and expulsion commited against the them

Perhaps you are correct in that something like this should be mentioned, however, please read up on WP:NPOV before proposing any further changes. I have edited Wikipedia for a while now, and I can tell you that when a new editor comes along and proposes a change because someone was guilty of "genocide", it is usually received poorly. It would help if you could give us more context. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto was a great lady !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.93.188 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bakhtawar or Bakhtwar?

What is the correct name of her daughter? --212.202.78.85 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

>> Bakhtwar Bhutto Lil'Khan (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian PM Kevin Rudds statement being removed.

I find his statement as necessary to add as Gordon Browns, or George Bush. Why is it being removed? If there is a reason it shouldn't be there, please say so. Or else, can somebody who has the time please include his statementrs. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22979830-662,00.html -- Link to comments. Myoutbackshed (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Assassination of Benazir Bhutto#Australian/Kevin Rudd response where there was a similar discussion. Basically, Kevin Rudd just doesn't cut it as a leading world figure. His comments are listed here: International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto#Oceania along with other world leaders. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Clinton remarks

Text is being repeatedly deleted from the section on international reactions to the Bhutto assassination on the pretext that Hillary Clinton is not the leader of a nation. If that is the case, then the question need be asked as to which nation Craig Calhoun (whose remarks are also included) leads. There is no Wikipedia requirement, stated or implied, that international reactions be limited to official reactions by heads of state or their representatives. That Hillary Clinton is currently a presidential candidate makes her remarks no less noteworthy than prime minister candidate Benazir Bhutto's remarks would have been had the situation been reversed and had it been Hillary who had been assassinated and not Bhutto. The vandalized text:

On December 29, 2007, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated that Benazir Bhutto might have been murdered by Pakistani troops and urged diversion of all US aid to Pakistan away from the military to social and humanitarian programs.

I politely suggest that you re-assess your use of the term vandalism. Editors are entitled to make good faith changes to articles without being abused with that label. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of an articulated legitimate reason, the repeated deletions of Clinton's remarks are vandalism, plain and simple. Vandalism as defined by wikipedia: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any legitimate reason". No legitimate reason has been articulated for the removal of Hillary Clinton's remarks. Nothing in Wikipedia restricts quotes of international reactions to heads of state and the article contains an undeleted reaction by a "Craig Calhoun" who heads no state. Clinton is unquestionably a notable person yet has been singled out for deletion of her reaction to Bhutto's assassination that currently is featured in 3,479 Google news articles: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+clinton&btnG=Search+News Mothra (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, it's trying to reduce clutter. What special knowledge of the assassination does Hillary Clinton have? Maybe the opinions and theories of every U.S. Presidential candidate should be posted? (I think NOT.) And if you think Craig Calhoun likewise is just offering an opinion based on nothing, then you could delete his remarks also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Craig Calhoun stuff, as there is no indication that his opinion matters any more (nor less) than Hillary Clinton's, and neither of them is asserted to have any special expertise on the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion of Clinton's comments have been articulated (here, for example). And here's a Wikipedia quote to throw back at ya: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Happy New Year, WWGB (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kingturtle "argued" that "let's keep reactions to heads of state, and official government reps". That's not a legitimate argument for deletion of Clinton's remarks. Wikipedia has no policy restricting remarks to heads of state. The policy is whether the person or their remarks is notable. Someone complained at the discussion to which you pointed me that other presidential candidates' remarks were not mentioned. Someone else complained that Clinton had no special knowledge of the Bhutto assassination. And now someone is complaining of "clutter". The same "arguments" could be made for any head of state. All the stated "reasons" sound like partisan POV whining. You want to post the reactions of other presidential candidates? Then be bold and do it, but don't delete the notable remarks of other notable people. Wikipedia is based on notability. Clinton is notable. Her remarks on the Bhutto assassination are notable and currently the subject of at least 3,500 news articles. Mothra (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The International reaction section is getting far too big again. As noted in my introductory comment to the section, we should keep a representative group of important quotes, but not everyone on the other page. We absolutely do not need to keep even every national leader in the section. I would support removing Clinton, Calhoun, and many others from this page. Superm401 - Talk 09:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only remarks that would be of interest would be from some national leader who was in favor of the assassination. The rest is all a restatement of the same thing. And the theories of Clinton, or Huckabee, or anyone else, as to what happened, are based on nothing and serve no purpose in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A compromise, of sorts, would be to isolate the various opinions to a separate page. Then the clutterers could have at it. And when the furor dies down, it could be dropped, like a dead leaf from a tree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate page, and we should minimize clutter here. That doesn't mean there should be no quotes here, and it certainly doesn't mean there should be only quotes that are of "interest". If you find a major figure that endorses the assassination, it should certainly be added. But Wikipedia's job isn't only to provide scandalous viewpoints; we provide the view points that are actually out there.

"We provide the view points that are actually out there." That is precisely what is NOT being done here. The most notable viewpoints both domestically and internationally concerning the Bhutto assassination are that

(a) Musharraf was indirectly responsible for the assassination by failing to provide proper security for Bhutto

(b) Musharraf was himself behind the assassination and

(c) unknown elements of Pakistan's military and/or intelligence are behind it.

NOT ONE of those three viewpoints is now represented in the article on Bhutto. Until the deletion of the Hillary Clinton item, which is reported in over 3,500 newspapers, at least (c) was represented. Taking the news into your own hands rather than dispassionately reporting it and deleting notable viewpoints on specious grounds is precisely what produces such a weird result. Mothra (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence that Hillary Clinton has some special inside info, her opinion on who might have been behind the assassination has no more validity than yours or mine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How did the validity of any international reactions become an issue regarding their inclusion in the article? Concerning inclusion or exclusion from the article, the validity of Clinton's statements are not an issue. It is sufficient that she is notable, and that her remarks are notable, too (with over 3,500 google news articles alone mentioning them). Remember, this is an evolving media event. Mothra (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, where is theory (d) that Bhutto's own people might have done it? There are various suspicious things about the way the aftermath was handled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be any number of other theories about who did it. If any of them are notable, they could be mentioned, too. If a person of Hillary Clinton's international stature speculated that space aliens did it, that would be noteworthy and should be reported as an international reaction, too despite the obvious lack of validity. That's because it's still part of the international reaction. Again, the issue in this evolving media event is not the validity of the reaction or whether the person making the comment has special knowledge of the event, but what the notable international reaction in fact IS to it. And Clinton is undeniably an international notable who has made undeniably notable remarks on the Bhutto assassination. Mothra (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

While she herself may be notable, her opinion on this or any other subject is not necessarily notable. As far as theories, only the opinions of those with some special knowledge are notable. Otherwise, they are just guessing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Only the opinions of those with some special knowledge are notable. Otherwise, they are just guessing." When, where and by whom did wikipedia adopt your personal definition of notability? What makes opinions "notable" is not whether they are correct or whether they are based on guessing, but on their widespread distribution. With over 3,500 articles mentioning Clinton's views on the Bhutto assassination, there is no question that by wikipedia standards that Clinton's remarks ARE very thoroughly notable. And as you've already acknowledged, Clinton herself is notable. Mothra (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there are 892,000 hits for "flat earth" so that must be notable too. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'd like to hear the Flat Earth Society's take on this event. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets get the personal opinions of Britney Spears and Brad Pitt, as they are also notable public figures who likewise have no demonstrable inside info on this story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If 3,500 news outlets report their remarks, as they did Hillary's, I'd be all for it. Mothra (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the minimum standard for number of hits on the exact same quote? Is it 3,500? Or is it 500? Or is it 5? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Red herring. 3,500 independent google news sources meets the "minimum", whatever that may be. Mothra (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The red herring is the idea that a notable person's comments about a notable topic somehow render the comments themselves notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And as for deleting the separate page later, we can do that if and only if there's consensus at WP:AFD. Superm401 - Talk 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What guidelines do you recommend using for determining which few quotes belong on this page and which ones don't? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the figure of 3500 cannot be substantiated. Searching for Clinton and Bhutto on Google News does produce over 3500 "hits", however, searching them leads to the articles being exhausted after about 740 articles. That's about 80% of the argument gone. WWGB (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar considerations apply to all the people whose reactions that have not been censored. Hillary stands at about 3,500 while these are the numbers (sometimes quite meager) at google news for the others:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,031 for bhutto UN Security Council http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+UN+Security+Council&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 4 of about 5 for bhutto Amr Moussa

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Amr+Moussa&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 427 for bhutto Manmohan Singh

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Manmohan+Singh&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 872 for bhutto Gordon Brown

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Gordon+Brown&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for bhutto José Manuel Barroso

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Jos%C3%A9+Manuel+Barroso&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,411 for bhutto george bush http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+george+bush&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 2 of about 34 for bhutto Tarcisio Bertone http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Tarcisio+Bertone&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 116 for bhutto Pope Benedict XVI

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Pope+Benedict+XVI&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for bhutto Qin Gang

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Qin+Gang&btnG=Search+News

Mothra (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many hits she has. We're not just publishing every comment by a notable person. Note that no other candidates should be included either. Superm401 - Talk 12:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Superm, just who is this "we" who are censoring comments by candidates? When, where and by whom was the decision taken at wikipedia to censor international reactions from other than heads of state? By you? By what authority? Mothra (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First you're claiming partisanship, now censorship. But where are your quotes from the other candidates? By pushing only one candidate's comments, it is you that is pushing active partisanship and tacit censorship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no partisanship in posting comments from one person. And I didn't post them because she is a presidential candidate (in fact I am a strong social conservative who opposes her election). I posted them because they are a notable expression of an international reaction. If you want to add quotes from other people who happen to be candidates, that's your right. That's how wikipedia gets built up, instead of torn down. Mothra (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to be wary of your motives in only pushing Hillary's comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, if we were to publish candidates' opinions, we should publish all of them, not just Hillary's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Go ahead and collect reactions from all the other candidates and post them all. Mothra (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you're the one that wants them, so you need to do that work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oy, watch out, now Mosura has gone to tell Dad. Hee, hee, hee, ... 220.253.72.28 (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys could use a spanking. Mothra (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the lack of good faith by the vandals has been fully documented, it is once again time to ask the ultimate question: When, where and by whom was the decision taken by wikipedia to exclude international reactions by non-heads of state? I've already asked this question at least twice without getting any response. Mothra (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You began the "lack of good faith" by bringing up the accusations of vandalism, partisanship and censorship, when in fact it's a content dispute. And I say again, if you're going to publish one candidate's irrelevant and self-serving public comments, you need to publish all of them. Stop hassling us and get to work looking up that info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is dodging the question. Again. Neither he nor his tiny band of self-appointed censoring thugs have any authority to delete what is clearly legitimate material. He has failed to cite any wikipedia policy at all that would allow deletion of notable comments by a notable person regarding the Bhutto assassination as part of the international reaction to the assassination just because the notable person in question is not a head of state or happens to currently be a candidate in a US election. The numerous dodges, red herrings and outright dishonesty in defense of vandalism by this troll are a textbook case of what wikipedia should NOT be. Mothra (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And now we're thugs. I'd like to know what policy he's citing that supports that random comments by random public figures are necessarily eligible for inclusion in an event in which they have neither first-hand knowledge nor any authority (at present) to influence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no good reason to include Hillary's comments here anymore than those of Willard, Rudy, Bill, John, or anyone else running for President. If you'd like to include a section of American presidential candidate's reactions to Ms. Bhutto's assassination, that would be one thing...and you've already been advised this. A statement, without any uniqueness, specialness, insight, etc, from a Junior Senator with no relevant committee assignments is no more (or less) relevant than any other statement from any other run-of-the-mill politician - or average citizen, for that matter.--averagejoe (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Average joe claims I've already been advised I could include a section on US presidential candidates' reactions. Not true. Review the lengthy discussion above and you'll find that the others rejected all presidential candidates' remarks. In any case, Clinton's remarks had a notable international dimension that none of the other candidates had and they were not posted for any reason other than their notability. Mothra (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reactions are more than comments from officials. Any response, either verbal or non-verbal, that is directly related to an event and that gives additional information on the central issues should be noted. Hillery’s reguest for an independent international inquiry, similar to the Hariri Tribunal that investigates the assassination of Libanese prime minister Hariri in 2005, and the declination of the Pakistani government, claiming foreigners will not sufficiently understand the internal situation in Pakistan, is a typical example. Why is this important information not in the section ?

Also on Jan 1, 2008, senator Latif Khosa announced that Bhutto was about to reveal proof of the Pakistani government rigging the Jan 8 elections when she was assassinated. Why is this not mentioned ?

Khosa states that secret service ISI intended to use at least 25,000 pre-filled voting forms with candidates supporting president Musharraf. Also heads of polling districts were intimidated in order not to accept certain opposition candidates. Finally ISI intended to manipulate the computer network used by the national election committee. Khosa and Bhutto wrote a 160 page report on the irregularities. Bhutto was to give this report to two US congressmen and hold a press conference on the day she was assassinated. A Musharraf spokesperson called these allegations “ridiculous”. President Musharraf will address the nation in a televised speech on the evening of Jan 2, 2008.

Please update more frequently, or even better, remove the semi-protection so other editors can do a proper job. Thank you ! Peter de Jong I (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If that stuff is true, if she really knew all that stuff, then she should have known better than to stand up from an armored car. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! This is an Australian link to the story Bhutto had 'proof' of poll-rigging plan Peter de Jong I (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

and the Reuters link Bhutto had "proof" state, spy agency rigging pollPeter de Jong I (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Was she Sunni or Shia?

I am the President of PPP in Canada and i would like to clarify that Benazir is in fact Sunni Muslim. I have met her many time on various occasions and have kept in contact with her. I want the facts straight even if her mother was Shia, she herself was not. She has also married a Sunni Muslim face reality and accept that she was a Sunni Muslim. THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.95.168 (talk • contribs)

Hi. We will need a reliable source for this. Please also understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground; we're more interested in proving what she would have called herself. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides your own experience, can you provide an article or essay or official website that supports your claim? Kingturtle (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two RSs that claim she was a Shia; Sunday Herald and The Times. This article from the India Express gives a little more detail on the Hindu origins of her father but that is neither here nor there for this article's purposes. So it looks like she was Shia. Ekantik ^talk 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

She was both Shia and Sunni. Lil'Khan (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing. The Times says she was a Shia. Ekantik ^talk 21:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Wikipedia is not what we think a person is or was. The bhutto family is shia. If you have any legitimate documentation stating otherwise, please provide it. The bhutto's don't publicize the fact that they are shia because there is no political incentive to do so. We do have documentation that she is shia. Her father's first name is an extremely shia name as well. Please quit changing this, unless you can provide documentation otherwise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.51.96 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar debate is going on at the Musharraf page. Presumably the purpose is to make something of their Islamic factionalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Accomplishments while in office

During her first term as Prime Minister [1988-1990], Benazir Bhutto, her husband and top administrators re-directed a total of $6.25 million which was intended for use by Pakistan's public education system. As these funds were not directed into other legitimate government projects, there has been much speculation that the money found its way into various personal bank accounts located in other countries.

This mis-direction of funds has had lasting effects: By bankrupting the country's public education system, the door was opened for privately-funded Madrassas which are open to the public. While many of these are legitimate institutions, a number of them have proven to serve as recruiting centers for future Jihadis. Futher, such institutions instruct their students in religious education only, neglecting any course of study that would provide them with the tools needed for productive employment in the future. Many rural and low-income families, without the option of sending their children to private schools, are faced with the choice of not sending their children to school at all - thereby ensuring their future ignorance and poverty; or sending them to a religious school which will neglect all aspects of education that are not related to Islam - thereby ensuring their future ignorance and poverty. Without proper education in all levels of society, Pakistan will be prevented from entering the world community on an equal footing.

In spite of numerous campaign promises, during neither term in office did Prime Minister Bhutto address the issues of women's rights. At the end of her final term in 1996 the laws of Hudood and Zina, as well as a number of other laws curtailing women's rights in Pakistan, stood uncontested by her administration. Agilroy6 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Salam.i m from interior sind,just 8km away from Garhi Khudha Bakhas,i know wt Bhutto faith was,they r Sunni beralvi some one call them melavis as well a sufism trace back to Mulana Rumi,Who accept 4 Khulfa Rashid and give great important to Hazrat Ali[r.z] as well.this is the story ,ican challange anyone for that.the proof of bhutto family being Sunnis is,that u will see First four khulfa names on thier graveyards.Asid Zarderi seems to be shia but i m not confirm about his real faith,coz he is from nawabshah far from us.Ahmed Hussain Bagio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.22.123 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Death (On the top of the page)

Where it says that the article is about a recent death, it goes to deaths in 2008, shouldnt that be 2007? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I do not think that it is appropriate to mention her religion at all. Secondly, if mentioned, it is sufficient to mention it as Islam. There isn't any necessity of mentioning the sub-religion or sect. Telling that she was a Sunni or Shia is highly stupid idea. Thirdly, personally I believe that she was a Sunni muslim. If otherwise, what proof you have to suggest that she was Shia muslim?

Aursani (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, I don't really see the rational for having religion on the infobox - what does it add to the article? - Having said that; I'm fairly sure, given her background, that she was Shia, what is more important I think is how she chose to define herself. Having her religion as Islam should suffice.

Pahari Sahib, 13:42, 1 January 2008 (GMT)

The topic has just been discussed above. It is actually important to mention her sub-sect given the highly polarised politics of Pakistan. In any case, the RS's say that she was Shia. Ekantik ^talk 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani politics maybe polarised, but I do not recall a Sunni-Shia schism, Bhutto had supporters from both communities.

Pahari Sahib, 16:12, 2 January 2008 (GMT)

I think it would be important simply as religion is a charged topic throughout the middle east. SGGH ^speak! 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In her autobiography, Benazir Bhutto says that her father was a Sunni Muslim and her mother an Iranian Shia. 151.197.111.89 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So? Wikipedia is an enyclopaedia that displays reliably-sourced information. Religious strife in the Middle East will continue irregardless of what Wikipedia says. Ekantik ^talk 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Iranian-Kurdish descent?

It says: a Pakistani of Iranian-Kurdish descent; Iranian is not an ethnic group as Kurdish is. So it is inconsistent to say İranian-Kurdish descent. There are many different ethnic descents in Iran: farsi, azeri, kurdish so on. -ArazZeynili_talk^contrib_{11:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)} Hi Bob! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.192.89 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple errors I think there are...

Up in the front, the section at the top mentions that this article is about someone who recently died, but it redirects to deaths in 2008, when she died in December, 2007. I need to know if someone can fix that. Second, the page credits her as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, isn't Bhutto the former prime minister? Thats all for now, any input? (talk Javascap (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Time article

The new issue, with her on the cover (actually, half of her face, in black-and-white) has a scathing piece about how she was merely part of the problem in Pakistan, not part of the solution. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would make a good fair-use image for this article or a related one? Ekantik ^talk 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumbly, if the contents of the Time articles are discussed, including the criticism. The Time writeups are as much about Pakistan in general as about Bhutto. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Democracy is the best revenge

It struck a responsive chord when I saw and heard Benazir Bhutto's son announce, "My mother always said, 'Democracy is the best revenge.'" (re-roadcast on WNBC-TV/NYC 15:50 (EST) -- 6 January 2008). A selection of print-source reference citations for this quote are:

• "Democracy the best revenge, says Bilawal," Dawn (Internet). December 31, 2007/Zilhaj 20, 1428.
• "Democracy is the best revenge: Bilawal Bhutto Zardari," Times of India. December 30, 2007.
• Fitzgerald, Mary. "Democracy is the best revenge, says Bhutto's son," Irish Times. December 31, 2007.

In my view, these compelling words should be incorporated into the text of the main article. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article also points out actions that belied those words. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs makes an interesting point -- one that I had not previously considered. I'll give this some further thought, but my first blush response is to disagree. In my view, the quote is good enough to stand on its own, regardless of whether its substance can be shown to have been reflected in Bhutto's actions. I admit frankly that I'd not previously considered issues of "POV" and/or "neutrality" in a context as narrow as this; but I would have thought that the mere fact that this turn-of-phrase sounds clever would be, in itself, sufficient reason to justify incorporating it in the body of the article.

In this same vein, I would have argued that, if the phrase "Democracy is the best revenge" were attributed to the notoriously corrupt Boss Tweed of turn-of-the-century New York City, I would still guess that this clever wordplay would have been appropriately incorporated in the text of a Wikipedia article about a memorable mayor -- even knowing as I do that such a statement would have been ironic, at best. Do you see my point?

In any event, one thing at least remains certain: I'm very glad I posted this segment here at Talk:Benazir Bhutto, because it somehow generated constructive and thought-provoking feedback from User:Baseball Bugs. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt it's a colorful and idealistic quote. My concern with quotes always is that they can be being cited as "justification" for pushing a particular point of view. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, there's no reason why it can't go on Wikiquote if it hasn't done so already. Ekantik ^talk 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In wikiquote, sure, I would think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well her so called will also belied those words stated by her son. As she was known as a democratic worker, but in actual she didn't believe in democracy. If she was a democratic person she should have left the decision of appointing chairman of Pakistan Peoples Party on the Party leaders instead of imposing her husband or son as the Chairman. --Sarmad (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, I do begin to better appreciate the point User:Baseball Bugs was trying to make. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

ATTEMPT ON HER LIFE AND WESTERN CONCEPT OF HER PERSONALITY

wikipedia profile states the first Karachi attempt on her as suicide bombing which contention neither her partymen nor those travelling in her van support . It was described in a previous version of the profile .

She knew how to speak arabic but seemed to be not as fit or westernized as she used to be .She was intimated by UAE sources about an attack impending on her but resolved to proceed to Pakistan .

Her death benefited war on terror's continuation as she was more likely to lead to some settlement of issues involved between west and Pashtuns and not like Musharaf continue in the the current military way .She was in contact with tribals who deny sending any suicide bomber to kill her and her party has accepted the tibal pashtun reassurances and she did too .

Regime deliberately let pakistan come into chaos state after her death to allow postponement of elections according to opposition sources .

What did she really accomplish as Prime Minister?

The article said she had initiatives for reform during the first time she was Prime Minister. Which of these initiatives were actually initiated? I read an article in Time magazine (dated Jan 11, 2008) she accomplished nothing and none of her legislations were passed before being dismissed for corruption charges. What did she accomplish on her second time as Prime Minister as well? Azn Clayjar (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That TIME article mentions that both her terms were truncated due to corruption charges etc. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. The TIME article is an example of good sourcing. Ekantik ^talk 02:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

She accomplished nothing rather than promoting corruption.--SMS ^Talk 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty International's Ruling On Mrs. Bhutto's Regime Needs To Be Included

I believe there is a grave oversight in this article in the fact that it does not addressing the Human Rights Violations allegations brought against her government during the time she was in power.

to paraphrase the below listed site, Amnesty international accused Bhutto's government of grievous human rights violations, and Transparency International in 1995 ranked Pakistan as on of the top three most corrupt governments in the world.

Published November 30, 2007 http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/article_detail.php?id=143 21 January, 2008

Furthermore I believe that the exclusion of this well published fact introduces a possible bias by not addressing how controversial of a Prime Minister she was. This article needs to address the fact that even though recently she has been campaigning on democracy, her record as Prime Minister seems to indicate that she has not practiced such democratic teachings in the past.

Below is a list of web addresses for articles from major news sources addressing her record as Prime Minister, as well as providing a good balancing viewpoint to the pro-democracy light she has been cast in:

http://iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/opinion/edahmed.php http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/world/asia/11bhutto.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/opinion/28fri1.html

While Mrs. Bhutto was a controversial figure, these allegations from reputable sources need to be included in order to ensure that this article represents a clear and unbiased picture of Mrs. Bhutto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.28.163.23 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Elected" to Phi Beta Kappa

"She was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa." No one is 'elected' to Phi Beta Kappa. (AmericanGuru (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Scotland Yard outcome

Please update. This is semi protected- so I can't Streona (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please donot accuse or be a part of it for someone dead

Looking at the page about Ms Bhutto, I saw emphasis on her corrupt deals by someone. It is to remember that she was never been proven guilty for any corruption charges and all charges levied by previous governments later on were declared as FABRICATED.

Its not good to keep on assassinating character of someone who is not among us and especially whose life was taken in such a brutal way. We must not forget that She was symbol of democracy in Pakistan and probablt the bravest woman world have ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riztech (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The info written in the article about her corruption charges is properly cited. So, there isn't any point to remove it! --SMS ^Talk 18:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of that citation is from Indian newspapers and one can see your judgement as well. Why don't you guys shut up and leave her soul to rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riztech (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith while talking here! And about concern that most of the citations are from Indian newspaper, then i think you are ignorant that Dawn, NYTimes, TimesOnline, BBC aren't Indian News media and most of the citations are from these! and if you have any doubt over citations from Indian newspaper, then you must know it that those can be easily found elsewhere too! And by saying this, do you mean that India looked at Benazir with hostile attitude, then i think you are again wrong. --SMS ^Talk 11:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Shia? Sunni? Both? Whats up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is sufficient to say that her religion was Islam. Aursani (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Over 1 billion people are Muslim. I don't see a problem with adding more detailed information to the infobox, if it is cited. Superm401 - Talk 07:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Shia is a denomination, not a religion. The info box asks for religion; the answer is Islam. Easy peasy. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Page on Shah Nawaz Bhutto

This page is not about Shah Nawaz Bhutto. Therefore there is no need to tell tha the came from India. In addition, this is not the fact. There is no reference to the statement that her gradfather came from Haryana. Also, there is no documentary proof that she had reached an agreement with the President Musharaf. On the contrary, she has been aledgely killed by the President.

Aursani (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference regarding an agreement she had with the President, please refere to the section Possible deal with the Musharraf Government. And don't defame others by false alleging. --SMS ^Talk 14:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Parent From Haryana !!!

The hypothesis that her grand father changed here cast from Bhatta to Bhutto is a baseless and biased assumption, with no solid evidence or reference.

Aursani (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hello folks. I'm currently trying to fix links pointing towards the Punjab disambig page. There's a link in the info box relating to her death that's currently pointing to the disambig page rather than to Punjab (Pakistan). Could one of the registered users fix it please? Thanks. 163.1.181.208 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done --SMS ^Talk 05:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think...

That this could be a good article? If someone does, could you please nominate it? Thanks. Mm40 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it. :) --Kaypoh (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

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

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

Always useful, in particular, is it evident to a new reader where one contributor stops and another starts? WWGB (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I write a lot for students, parents and teachers, so the information must be technically correct but accessible to a diverse audience. WWGB (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)