Talk:Benazir Bhutto

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Suicide or Homicide Bomber?

I just noticed that suicide bomber is actually just a redirect to Homicide Bomber. The main page and the CNN article speak of suicide bombing, though. Is there some sort of guideline which term should be used in articles? --JakeC 09:17, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Change to homicide bomber. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Cause of death

Bullet wounds, bomb explosion... Probably best to leave the article until specifics are revealed. CNN's reports are, as all other news stations' reports are, thin on facts and full of speculation. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Well, unless the suicide bomber also shot all the bullets, it's potentially wrong to say that he killed her. This is jumping to a conclusion that's explicitly not made by the news stations. As a compromise, we can leave out the (sourced) fact that her actual cause of death is unclear, but leave in my phrasing that she died after the suicide bombing attack. --JakeC 09:25, 27 December 2007 (EST)
The article as it stands is sufficient. It can be changed when facts can be added. All other discussion on a breaking news story is probably better carried out on the Main Page talk page. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:29, 27 December 2007 (EST)
There are witness reports and sources in the form of various news agencies. There is confusion and lack of clarity, and that in itself is notable. This isn't a print medium. We can afford to update out articles as the situation develops. (If you reply, don't be surprised that my reply will be delayed - I gotta head out in a few.) --JakeC 09:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)
A hospital official has confirmed that Ms. Bhutto was shot five times in the neck and chest as well as having suffered severe shrapnel wounds, at a large political rally. She was riddled with bullets before the suicide bomber set himself off. It is not yet clear if she was shot at close range, or from a distance by a sniper.
The hospital pronounced her dead at 6:16 P.M. Pakistan time. To be clear, her death by assassination has been fully confirmed. [1] --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:11, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I've never disputed that, and my first edit stated she was killed by a bomber; I just disagreed that putting "It is unclear whether her fatal wound was delivered by the bomb's shrapnel or by one of the gunshots fired during the aftermath" was not encyclopedic, and could be specified within the article as soon as this was known! File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:17, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Your initial edit implied that the bomb killed her since it made no mention of the shots at all ("assasinated on 27 December 2007 by a suicide-bomber"). That was hardly more encyclopedic, especially now that we know that she had been shot several times before the detonation even happened. While I don't claim that my edit was extremely superior, it at least stuck to what sources said instead of implying things without giving any source at all. --JakeC 13:58, 27 December 2007 (EST)

I didn't "imply" anything. I still don't imply anything. She was killed by a suicide bomber, and whether he fired a gun at her, stabbed her with a sharp stick or threw poison tree frogs at her was not mentioned as this was not known. Last time I saw the news, no autopsy had been conducted, and no specific medical information regarding the exact cause of her death had been released. If you have something productive and positive to add to the article, please do so :) it lacks important information regarding her policies and the recent tensions with Musharaf et al. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:04, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Good answer. Now JakeC, lets face some productive time. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:09, 27 December 2007 (EST)
A sysop supporting another sysop. Not surprised... I think I can be cut some slack - my edit counter says that 129 of my 156 edits are in the mainspace (roughly 83%). But yes, I'll be a good boy and promise to spend less time debating content accuracy ;) --JakeC 14:30, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Saying that she was assassinated by a suicide bomber without saying anything else implies things, whether you like them or not (Just like "He was killed by a Kamikaze pilot" or "I lost my parents in WW2" imply certain things unless specified otherwise). Also, it was mentioned that there were gunshots involved, so that wasn't just speculation. Your comparison (as entertaining as it may be) is thus somewhat absurd.
My edit was productive and added the only reference link to the article, and it got fully reverted (which is especially hilarious now, since the much more explicit claims are still unsourced), so I'll follow the "Once bitten twice shy" rule and let you sysops handle this one while I focus on a not-quite-so-hot topic or something. :) --JakeC 14:30, 27 December 2007 (EST)


Don't edit war; leave it as it stands until more concrete information is available. If you wish to alter the article, add some meat to it discussing her background/political career, etc. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:22, 27 December 2007 (EST)

So only you are allowed to edit about her death? My contrib was sourced, and the source was used by Andy on the Main Page. See above for a suggested compromise. --JakeC 09:25, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Fox is right; we need to get concrete info. But whatever you find, post it here first. Karajou 09:35, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I think it's foolish to pretend that the current news buzz (with most sources admitting that the cause of death is not clear) simply doesn't exist. Just waiting for a definite result (that may or may not come) while CNN, NYT, FOX, and all the others are actively reporting strikes me as lazy. I don't see why sourced edits of notable news agencies are discarded in favor of unsourced speculation and highly generalized statements. (If you reply, don't be surprised that my reply will be delayed - I gotta head out in a few.) --JakeC 09:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)
It appears that you might have reached some sort of compromise. Personally, I think that the suicide/homicide attack should be mentioned, but keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so you should avoid (as far as possible, and it's not always possible) adding in things that are transitory and which you know will have to be changed in the short term, such as "It is unclear...", when there is every expectation that this will become clear within a matter of days. Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 27 December 2007 (EST)
You're right, this isn't a news paper. It's a wiki, where we can adapt for any new information in a matter of minutes. We can very well afford deliver current information for those who seek answers (or do you think the average John Doe will simply say "Oh, no info here. Well, I'll just wait a few days or weeks then before finding out anything about her death"?). Right now, her death isn't sourced at all. My edits were reverted to the point of not even allowing the same source Andy used on the front page, not even to document the fact that she died. (If you reply, don't be surprised that my reply will be delayed - I gotta head out in a few.) --JakeC 09:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, I think I'd agree that reversion went too far. But it does now say that she was assassinated (which means that she died), and I said above that it should mention the bomber/bombing. Philip J. Rayment 09:59, 27 December 2007 (EST)
(Last-minute reply) Read my post again: It's not sourced at all. For all that I care, I could now post a {{fact}} tag there. Who says that she's dead? Oh, those news agencies we just reverted away as "speculation"... ;) Seriously: The lack of concrete information is very sad. I had offered a compromise above (suggesting to keep my "She was killed on 27 December 2007 after a suicide bomber attack in Rawalpindi, Pakistan."), but quoting Fox: "The article as it stands is sufficient." Anyway, I'm out for a few. Seeya --JakeC 10:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)
You're right, sorry. I did misread that. And I agree that the source reference should have stayed in. Philip J. Rayment 16:25, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Why speculate whether she died from gunshot wounds or blast trauma? Why put that indecision in the article? Knee-jerk reactions are why wikipedia has to put semi-protection on its articles. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 10:05, 27 December 2007 (EST)
I didn't speculate. I cited CNN by saying that it wasn't clear whether her death was caused by the bomb. If she died from the gun wounds instead of the shrapnel, it's simply inaccurate to say that she was killed by a suicide bomber because it implies a cause of death.
If there was a knee-jerk reaction, it was your sudden full revert of my sourced edit and the sudden accusation of edit warring, along with the quasi-command not to touch your version, especially not right after I offered a compromise (which would have been at least somewhat clearer than your edit).
I must also note that there is still no source regarding her death, even though at least we now got a few details in the article.
Oh, and I see you were promoted. Congratulations. --JakeC 13:58, 27 December 2007 (EST)
Keep an eye on Pakistan. If Musharraf or his allies was responsible, expect a new, radically-Islamic government; if radical Islamacists are responsible (such as Al Qaida; and they have concentrated on setting such conditions there), expect a war against them. Karajou 09:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Article (2)

I've made a start but it really needs the 2007 controversies and upcoming election material adding in, plus some of the meat about why the extremists found her so unacceptable. And, of course, the assassination. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:41, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Explanation of the Fact Tag for her death details

Sorry if my Fact Tag there looks like mean poking.

I lost track of all the Bhutto news, so I think whoever edited those details into the article should try to find the source again (If I find a report that matches the data, I'll do it myself of course). At that time, there were various reports with various levels of detail, so it's better to secure a "fresh" source rather than some bland report that cuts a sort of mean average through all the initial reports (and most likely gets half the stuff wrong in the process). --JakeC 17:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Update: Thanks, Fox! Shows how much I lost track of things, I didn't even hear of that (to be fair: I've been out and around most of the day)... --JakeC 18:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Role of Taliban

A Taliban commander linked to al-Qaeda is suspected of plotting the suicide attack that killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's government said. [2]

I got this from the blog of a close friend who has several high-level diplomatic contacts. --Ed Poor Talk 18:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Personal tools