Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assassination of Benazir Bhutto/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:25, 16 March 2008.

[edit] Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured status because it is well sourced, neutral and about an event of great historical importance. I believe it meets all FA requirements. --Zaindy87 (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Isn't the investigation into the assassination still going? It would seem that any major break in the case would lead to drastic changes to some sections of the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • re:comment: Baitullah Mehsud has been blamed for the assassination, and it was carried out by Al-Qaida. This means that until Mehsud is caught, if ever, this case will not be closed. It is highly unlikely that the blame will shift to anyone else, just like Osama Bin Laden has always been blamed for 9/11, despite the conspiracy theories that it's an 'inside job'. Smaller Al-Qaeda operatives are being arrested and interrogated in connection with the assassination, but they do not have a place on this article because they have not provided any 'major breaks'. So it is unlikely that anyone other than Baituallah will get the blame for this, and most people involved in this are likely to remain in hiding in the border mountains or be killed by the Pakistani Army/Air Force. --Zaindy87 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom - well sourced NPOV article about an event of great historical and encyclopaedic importance. Pahari Sahib 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now This is an absolutely excellent article: well-written and well-sourced but because so little time has elapsed since the assassination that it cannot be compehensive. For instance, the wider political ramifications of the assassination will play out over the next decade or more and, as the assassination was primarily politically motivated, the legacy/aftermath, which is a essential part of it, cannot yet be written. I appreciate that this is a very technical oppose and I will be delighted to review it if a suitable solution can be found or compelling arguments against it are raised. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your comments. I think this article is about the assassination itself and the immediate aftermath. The thing with the 'legacy' and 'ramifications' of this event is that these cannot be quantified. In 5 years time an event might happen or what people want might not happen, and the general public would say "If Bhutto was alive, this (would have/have not have) happened". How can we know for sure what should be attributed to the absence of Bhutto and what would have happened anyway were she alive? The things we do know that happened as a direct result of Bhuttos death, such as the riots and election delay are already in the article. I would have agreed with your objections had the doomsday predictions after her death had come true and Pakistan had been thrown into a civil war or the elections had been cancelled, but everything that was originally supposed to happen did, albeit with a months delay. The PPP elected new leaders, the elections went ahead, and the PPP won on account of the sympathy vote (noted in the article). This was a tragic event, yet Bhutto was a single person out of 165 million citizens and the country has moved on. To attribute any event to her absence from now on would be mere speculation, or in the language of Wikipedia, "original research". Also, I have gone through the various assassination articles on Wikipedia, and none of them have a 'legacy' section. If we take a look at the Kennedy assassination (to which this event has been compared in the media) article, we don't see a legacy section. Legacy sections belong to the article about the person, in this case John F Kennedy. Similarly, the wider ramifications of her death do not belong in this assassination article. Our job here should be to list the background information in the lead up to Bhuttos assassination, the assassination itself, and the immediate aftermath, such as riots, changes in the PPP party leadership, the results of the Feb. 2008 elections, and the international reaction to Bhuttos death. And I believe this article lays down that information brilliantly, with sources for every statement and it is written in a neutral language. Therefore, I believe it would be highly unfair to deny it FA status at this point. --Zaindy87 10:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The problem is that this article is little more than a summary of news sources. I'm not specifically recommending a legacy section, so don't get too hung up on that :) What I am saying is that it will only be with the passage of time that the analysis and context will be available from which a comprehensive and encyclopedic article can be constructed.
I was unimpressed by your attempt to dismiss this by suggesting that the implications of Bhutto's death will be unquantifiable. This is clearly not the case: it has already been a factor in the rise of the PPP; the descent of Musharraf; and a fresh awakening of international interest in Pakistan's internal politics. Even as I write the problems are still rumbling on. Today's Financial Times is reporting that internal wrangling about a prime minister are threatening "to split the Bhutto family political machine".
In short, only the passage of time will enable us to place this very complicated and momentous event in its correct context.
Otherwise, I do not entirely share your very high opinion of your work ("this article lays down that information brilliantly").
  • If I were being critical of the English, I'd point out that Peoples Party requires an apostrophe in all instances.
  • If I were being critical of the content, I would suggest that the "International reaction" section is thrown away, by reporting the entirely obvious. (Which members of the international commmunity are going to support the assassination?)
  • If I were being critical of its purported neutrality, I'd suggest that the political context is skimpy. For example, you mention the ISI in the context of the return but fail to mention its enormous power and influence within Pakistan. You also fail to examine suggestions, even though they were widely reported in the western press, that the ISI may have had a hand in the assassination. I'd also wonder why you refer to the "emergency room admission report" as alleged without citing a source indicating that it is believed false.
Finally, suggesting I'm being unfair in denying you the FA accolade is not going to win this particular heart and mind to your cause :)
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What I was saying was that I don't think anything drastic will happen due to the assassination that hasn't already happened. The PPP was expected to restore the fired judges, but that is not happening. The PPP was supposed to impeach Musharraf, but that is not happening. Splitting up of parties is nothing surprising in Pakistan. Politicians split and form alliances all the time, and there is already a couple of breakaway PPP parties (one of them mentioned in the article). There are also multiple Pakistan Muslim League parties.
As for the apostraphe in PPP, the official website of the party itself does not insert one. Here is the official website. The international section was ballooning up with different users inserting the reaction by different world leaders, and an attempt to keep it down to reactions the US, India, UK etc was not working, so a new article was created for the international reaction section, and only a summary was kept for this article. Just like the assassination of John F Kennedy article. The reason the reaction section is important is because a reader many years from now might not have any idea how the world reacted to this. Did India blame the ISI? Did Japan cut aid to Pakistan? What did Israel say?
As for the ISI being possibly behind this assassination, it has been mentioned. The first and last two paragraphs in the responsibility section deal with this possibility. Since there is no proof of the ISI being involved other than the Western press speculating about it a few times, one can only do so much.
And, I can only find two instances of the word alleged occuring in the article, neither of them referring to any medical report. If you are referring to the medical report which the 7 doctors signed, the reason it dosen't carry the same weight as what the government said is becase none of those 7 doctors were pathologists. There were radiologists etc and they had not performed an autopsy on Bhutto before compiling that report. By the way, I did not mean to accuse you of intentionally being unfair, and I apologize if I came across as rude. I was simply having a bad day, and once again, I appreciate your comments in regards to how this article can be improved. --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now- I think the article is very well written and I have no doubt that it meet all the standards of WP:FA?, but I think the need to change the content of the article may arise after a new probe is conducted to determine the cause and culprits in the coming days, by the PPP government who are very firm on their demand of UN probe. --SMS Talk 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Has it been confirmed that a UN probe is going to take place? What can investigators from the UN do that Scotland Yard failed to do? --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Who can say what will come out? With the recent election, Pakistan is emerging from a period when, under Musharrav and the generals who backed him, it had many of the characteristics of a police state. The new democratically elected government, which has not yet got its feet under the table, might well uncover all sorts of murky secrets and it has publicly pledged to try to do so. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but the possibility of the addition of new information is not a reason to fail an FAC, as demonstrated by the Obama article. If you compare the George W. Bush article with the Obama article, you will realize that if Obama becomes the next President, his page will change drmatically over time, yet he is an FA. --Zaindy٨٧ 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no reason to rush an article like this. Give it at least six months, who knows what is going to come out. NTK (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's the very first one: "factually accurate, neutral and stable." It's certainly not going to be stable, and we have little idea if it is factually accurate at this point. NTK (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see the instructions at WP:FAC; your oppose must be actionable, that is, the editor must be able to fix the issue. That can be satisfied by giving an example of a factual inaccuracy or uncited material in the text or text that misrepresents a citations, an example of failed neutrality or WP:UNDUE, or proof of instability as defined by WP:WIAFA. Current events have become FA; the applicable stability definition is at WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if a UN probe is carried out, they are not expected to come to groundbreaking conclusions. They can do little else than examine how Bhutto died. The CIA has agreed with the Pakistani government that the perpetrators were Al-Qaida, and Scotland Yard has agreed with the government on how Bhutto died. I say again, the UN report is unlikely to produce any new information, since they cannot examine crime scene data (Scotland Yard couldn't, either) nor can they interview ISI agents and government officials in connection with this crime. The stability of this article is not threatened. Even right after the Scotland Yard report came out, the article remained largely as it previously was, with the addition of the Scotland Yard findings being inserted into the lead and cause of death section. Likewise, any UN probe will add a few lines, at most a paragraph to this article, which can be easily managed without threatening the stability of the article. And the neutrality is taken care of, since all views and possibilites are mentioned. --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To be honest, this is not a universally held view of the situation. The fact remains that we have no idea what will come out.
  • Your reply also highlights WP:BLP concerns about Baitullah Mehsud. He has allegedly been linked to the assassination by a phone intercept but he claims he has been set up. Significantly, he is supported in his denials by the Bhutto family who vigorously dispute his involvement. Until Mehsud has been tried, he remains only a suspect. As a powerful provincial leader, in a profoundly unstable part of the world, he has links not only with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but also with western intelligence. It is not for us to say that because the CIA claim he is guilty, he is guilty. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This article does not contain a biography of Baitullah Mehsud, it merely names him as the primary suspect. It also presents his denial in the form of his quote stating that his group does not target women. It is completely neutral.--Zaindy٨٧ 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this wait until the facts are better known? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Cause of death has been confirmed beyond doubt. Responsibility is blamed on Al-Qaeda by the US and Pakistan, so it is highly unlikely to swtich to anyone else. Proof has been presented against Al-Qaeda in the form of the intercepted phone call of Mehsud, who was discussing the attack with a junior Al-Qaeda operative. I do not expect any major changes to occur. The article, as it currently stands, meets all requirements of WP:FA? but it seems most people would rather have it wait for an indefinite period of time. If in the future its stability becomes an issue (unlikely), then it can always be delisted. But for now I think to oppose it based on what might happen in the future is not useful. --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the person who peer reviewed the article I thought I would weigh in. I think think the article makes a very strong case for FA status (well written, comprehensive, well sourced) and I am disappointed that the comments here are so negative only because the topic of the article is new and the information might change. Barak Obama has FA status; by the comments made here we should immediately delist it because he is running for President of the USA and *if* he wins then the article would change dramatically. Biomedeng (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your analogy is not quite right. If a general article about Benazir Bhutto was a FAC, it would probably get through without too much opposition. But an article focusing solely on the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is as premature as an article focusing on Barak Obama and the outcome of the 2008 presidential elections. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Clearly, quite a few Wikipedians have some issues with the article's future stability and factual accuracy. At first, I disagreed with the basis for the opposition, however, my view has changed since then. I find SandyGeorgia's reasoning and interpretation of FAs in general quite unrealistic. Checking if the criteria are satisfied is more complex, because in reality, editors cannot fix certain issues. If more reliable and solid information is required (such as from the UN report), but this will not be available for some time, then the editors here have raised a very legitimate concern (and reasonable doubt) whether this article is up to the standard of a FA in terms of factual accuracy (although the instability argument is questionable in comparison). While I appreciate that some editors may have put an enormous amount of time and effort into making the article what it is, and are of the opinion that it is accurate based on what information you have currently, this is not necessarily enough to achieve an FA. If this event happened long ago, then an argument like 'I don't think the blame will switch to anyone else' is something that may have been overlooked. However, this is very recent, and there is no validity in making such assumptions for the purpose of receiving some recognition so quickly or for getting the top grade achievable by an article. Unfortunately some things that are out of our control, and it certainly is not Wikipedia's concern if this indirectly means there is an period of waiting. At this stage, unless I find a valid justification to the contrary, I am likely to be submitting an oppose vote as well. I also dismiss the above argument about Obama as these articles are not comparible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I find SandyGeorgia's interpretation of the FA criteria to be quite accurate. Opposition to a FAC needs to be based on actionable issues within the article. As Biomedeng has pointed out, the Barack Obama article is an FA despite the fact the he could become the President of the United States, a situation which will drastically change the look of the article in the coming years and make possible the arising of POV disputes and edit warring. Yet, the article was promoted as an FA and in an FA review decided to be kept as such in July 2007, well into the campaign season. Why, then, should this article be kept from gaining FA status? Going by the arguments being presented here, the Obama article should be delisted until after the elections to see if he is elected, and if he is, it should be kept from gaining FA status for another 4 years because 'solid, reliable information' about his presidency will not be available until after his term is over. Yet, the Obama article, just like some other articles which will have new information added to them as the years go by, are FA's. Compared to the Obama article, this one is only awaiting the results of the UN probe (which might not even happen!), which is not expected to change anything in the big picture, whereas Obama's actions in the coming years will likely cause much more controversey/edit warring/accuracy disputes. The Bhutto assassination article is, at this time, stable and netural, well sourced and by and large representative of the highest standards expected of an FA. --Zaindy٨٧ 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it is no surprise that you would find in the way that favours your position. Perhaps you ought to try to understand what is being said instead of blindly attempting (and failing) to push your point at every opportunity. And again, these articles are not comparible. The article is about Obama overall, this is specifically about the assassination of Bhutto. In case you didn't notice, there lies a big difference. There is no consensus that this article is up to the highest standards expected of an FA so I doubt very much that this article is going to become an FA at this stage. And btw, you do no favours to the article's nomination by disagreeing with the opinions of others - the opinions that you asked for by nominating the article! I too am opposing now as I see no valid justification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Perphaps you ought to read the line at the top of the FAC list page which states " Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Now you are saying that this article is not upto the standards required of an FA. Why? What's wrong with the article that I can act on? And you keep saying the Obama article is not comparable to this one, and you are wrong. We are talking about the potential for edit warring/POV disputes and the Obama article, an FA, is at much higher risk of that than this article. The page of the next President of the United States will change significantly from what it looks like right now. Yet Obama, who has a strong chance of being the next President, is a featured article on Wikipedia. Your argument against the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article holds no weight because you have not pointed out anything wrong with the article that can be brought upto standards. Using your logic, the Barack Obama article should not be featured. But it is. --Zaindy٨٧ 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to realise that your sources are not sufficient in this article either. I doubt you can act on this because, as such, only a short period of time has passed between the event actually happening. I did not talk about edit warring/POV in my reply (if you actually bothered to open you eyes and read it properly). Nor has this article got any relation to the Obama article, yet you seem to be focusing entirely on talking about it and avoiding the issues on this article, and ironically, you aren't even aware of the circumstances under which the Obama article was kept as a FA. The Obama article is about Obama per se, this is purely about the assassination of Bhutto. If this was only a section of an article on Bhutto, there would probably be a different outcome. However, it isn't, and I'm pretty sure the FA director is compelled to ignore your long rants as there is clearly no consensus. Just because you don't have enough reliable information, except those from newspapers and the like, doesn't mean this article can be promoted to FA. These are questionable until/unless a more reliable report is released to maintain factual accuracy so Wikipedia's standards are not compromised. You can keep ranting away, but it won't change this fact, nor will it change this article's status. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your problem with the article, Ncmvocalist? Your objections have no ground in the FA article criteria, because you want the article to wait just because it's a relatively recent happening. That is no reason to fail an FAC. The article right now meets all FA criteria. You are the one continually ignoring the perfectly valid, logical point I'm raising against your objection. You want this article to not become an FA just because of one, single possibly pending UN report which is not going to change anything in the article except the addition of a couple of lines to maybe a paragraph. This article is stable now, and it will be stable in the future. This article is well written and well sourced now, and it will remain so. You have no proof that any UN report is pending, and you want this article to be held back because new information might be added in the future? You have not pointed out anything wrong with the Bhutto article that I can fix. You're the one avoiding the issues, not me. If this article has any issue whatsoever that can be fixed, tell me. Otherwise, your objection is just based on baseless speculation against an FA deserving article. --Zaindy٨٧ 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems you are incapable of understanding or accepting the fact people disagree with you. Reread what I have said. Your inability to understand the basic fact that your article is questionable in factual accuracy is not my problem. This goes to referencing too. Stability is something I didn't even talk about so I have no idea why you are ranting again, except that you are in denial. For example; if you can only use questionable sources, and have no sources that are considered more reliable, then it is not something that you can fix - it is out of your hands - sorry! Many issues have been pointed out in previous objections, particularly by Roger. The objections are valid, and if this article was worthy of FA status, there wouldn't be so much opposition. Clearly there is no consensus that this article is up to the standard of a FA - Wikipedia's best work. Stop trying to assume ownership over the FA-voting process by ranting that it deserves an FA when clearly, it isn't ready. You have 1 vote - you have no authority to change or seemingly add another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, please see WP:CIVIL. Your personal attacks against me are uncalled for. Secondly, what part of my article is "questionable in factual accuracy"? Tell me, and I will fix it. What refercing source is questionable? All sources are comprised of major world news organizations such as CNN, BBC, Reuters and major Pakistani newspapers. There is not a single questionable source there; but you seem to think there are, so please name them. --Zaindy٨٧ 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding stability, pls see this past talk page thread, and the stability criterion, which is:

1 (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that, Sandy. I would like to point out that the two kinds of instability discussed on that link do not apply to this article. Information about this event is no longer changing rapidly. Nobody in the media is talking about this assassination anymore. All sources cited in the Bhutto article are from Dec 07-Feb 08. Huge chunks of information are not being made available about the investigation. Since the perpetrators were Al-Qaeda, and the killer blew himself up, there is unlikely to be anyone tried for this crime. The second type of instability is also absent from this article: there are no on-going POV edit wars, there never were. --Zaindy٨٧ 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the article again and think the only places that might change in the future would be cause of death (subsection) and responsibility (section). The rest of the article seems like it won't change much at all in the future. Back to the Obama article, *if* Obama were to become president there are definately some sections that would require changes in the article (or even brand new sections required), even though there are seperate articles regarding his presidential campaign. The same is true with this topic. There will likely be some additional investigations that should be included in the article. They may say what we already know about the assasination in which case they will only represent a few sentences to a whole paragraph. However, if the investigations uncover new information or overturn current theories they have the potential to dramatically change the two sections I mentioned previously. I truely appreciate what has been said here and I think that some of the comments made would be more applicable if this were an ongoing event (i.e. an on-going war, on-going political campaign, etc) rather than an event that happened and now a great deal of information has already been made available. So far it seems the only new information people expect to come later is the official UN investigation. Biomedeng (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the real issue, which is being lost under all the rhetoric, is whether it is appropriate to base an encyclopedia article for such a momentous entirely on news stories. Journalists disparingly call this approach "a clippings job". And, in this case, some of the clippings used are pretty tabloid in character. Where is the authoritative political analysis? Where is the historical perspective? Where is the discussion of its impact on the course of Pakistani governance? This article skims the surface: that is what makes it fail the test of comprehensiveness. This article is not unique. Wikipedia contains tens of thousands of articles which can not be properly written until the appropriate literature is published. I do not understand why this should be taken to FA with such unseemly haste. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The major cause of the opposes above has been Criteria 1(e), stability. However, the criteria clearly states that "Stable means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day ..." This article is definitely not part of any edit war, or, the content is not likely to change daily! So I request the reviewers to consider their opposes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with many here that stability is not an issue, per FA criteria. We need more FAs on recent major historical events. That's one advantage of an online encyclopedia over a paper version - we can write excellent articles (as in 'FA') on recent events. This article is extremely thorough and looks to be well-referenced with Reliable Sources. Of course such a recent event will contain nearly all reliable news sources, so no problem there. There is some very minor copy editing needed, but that's all, in my opinion, that's keeping this from FA. I've fixed a few examples,[1] [2] [3] but there are more. ~ priyanath talk 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do we need more FAs on recent major historical events? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news digest. I suggest the decision ought properly to be based on whether authoritative third-party analysis exists that gives the same credibility to articles on modern events as to any other major historical one. We wouldn't dream of basing an article on the Nuremburg Trials or the Assassination of Martin Luther King or the Battle of Gettysberg or the discovery of radium purely on newspaper accounts. Why should we do it here? --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Good article, with an well-sourced presentation of facts. I do not see anything that does not pass the list of FA criteria. Regarding the stability issue mentioned by the opposes above, I do not see any kind of concerns over stability of this article. Looking into the history of the article, it is as stable as it can get, and in the future, it is going to have couple of lines (or at the most, a sub-section) on UN report. This logic is applicable for almost every ongoing event, and as SandyGeorgia has mentioned above, there have been FAs on those topics. Given the state of the article, it meets the criteria and thats what matters. Very good job on the editors part, having maintained the NPOV on this apparently high-profile, and controversial topic! - KNM Talk 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Object per above. Also, the article has quite a few short bouncy sentences that should be merged together with a comma. Thirdly, many instances of PPP are not preceded by "the" where appropriate. Also, I think that al-Jazeera and Daily Mirror should not be used on FAs. Finally, the background section is not good and only tells us that she came back from exile. We need to know who here opponents were, what her policies are and why her opponents don't like her etc. At the moment there is no setting the scene as to the landscpe of politcal combat in Pakistan. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
eg, Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem explains why people wanted to get rid of him. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. One of the gaps is the failure to examine the longstanding feud between the Bhutto dynasty (including the execution of Bhutto's father) and the army leadership (which includes Musharrav, elements of ISI and the IB). Another is the failure to examine the awkward relationship between Musharrav and the United States in the "War on Terror" ("you're either with us or against us") and Bhutto's equally awkward relationship with the US and its agenda for Pakistani democracy. These relationships are at best contradictory and at worst incompatible. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the editors here have dealt with an absolute torrent of press coverage very well. This is a good, balanced read, which notes all of the theories surrounding the event, without accidentally falling for any one story. Bravo. There are things I don't like, however:

  • The lead clearly does not summarize the article. It focuses on the cause of death alone, without mentioning the many attendant aspects that the article itself covers. I'd suggest someone pull up a blank user page, and then pull up the article in a second window, and try to craft a lead that could "stand alone as a concise overview of the article" per WP:LEAD. Try to cover in the lead what the body already covers well.
  • The article creates a sense of tension between "actually shot to death" and "hit her head on the roof and died" but never explains why that difference matters. (She was assassinated, in either case.) Living in the Middle East, I've gathered that the first can be presented as martyrdom, and the latter as, well, sort of an accident. Bro-Bhutto doctors may have wanted her to have been shot, because it would present a more heroic figure. That was my anecdotal sense, and even if wrong, the article needs to explain why it was such a big deal about whether she hit her head or took a gun wound... Tell us what the big deal is, please, because half of the article is fixated on this point. Marskell (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weakly opposed - I would like to see more information in the background which sort of hints at why it happened - what she did as a politician that made her unpopular, who disliked her, etc. Also, the short parastub sentences in the Responsibility and Pakistani government sections need work. Not sure if it's ready yet, as an article, or in a "time since event" sense (although I'm not that big on that point). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - needs more time to incorporate better, non newspaper, sources. Barack Obama could have deadtree sources added; this has not. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I think so, however this is a very good article and I do home the editors will come back some time in the not too distant future, and get it the start it will soon deserve. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think WP:SNOW is applicable here. First of all this is a continuing discussion with multiple editors on each side. CClosing this discussion abruplty as you are advocating will not help this article become better, a goal we should all want. I count 2 supports and 6 objects with several other people weighing in with comments. Also, although I have limited experience with FACs, it does seem fair to allow Zaindy87 to respond to some of the recent suggestions regarding the scope of this article. It would seem fair to allow Zaindy to address the specific comments raised by Binguyen, dihydrogen monoxide, and marskell as their issues all seem like they can be addressed (i.e. "An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable"). Not sure why you object to letting this FAC run its course. Biomedeng (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify:
  1. Partly because this article has been here six days and there's absolutely no consensus whatsoever for promotion.
  2. Partly because lengthy discussions over borderline articles draw reviewers away from other FA candidates and contribute to backlogs.
  3. Partly because the list of actionable objections is lengthy (including re-writing the lead from scratch) and there's no reason for the article to stay here while these are done.
  4. Partly because Zaindy has already had ample opportunity to address some of the issues but has not made any changes to the article since 9 March and those were trifling ones.
  5. Partly because it will be a nightmare addressing support or opposition to those changes and this may be better done in a fresh FAC.
Hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It is fine with me if you want to close the FAC as "did not reach consensus." However, I don't think WP:SNOW is applicable to this discussion since it wasn't one-sided. I think WP:SNOW would be better used in a situtation if I nominated a stub article for FA status and you closed it immediately because it was obviously going to fail. Biomedeng (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't close it, that's down to Sandy or Raul. I was just trying to simplify the issues in what has been an intricate discussion :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.