Talk:International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia or wiki-index?

There is no "international reactions to the JFK assasination" article, neither one concerning the assasination of Gandhi. Yet, here we do have one about "Princess Bhutto". The amount of honors accorded a woman who got kicked out of office twice on verified corruption charges is more than sickening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.54.93 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because there was no Internet when Kennedy and Gandhi died, meaning sources were much less available. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia's job to selectively include subjects based on how they fare/fared in current/past political climates -- rather, we include whatever is notable and verifiable, which Bhutto, her assassination, and the international response thereto all clearly are. Wikipedia's not a place for the pushing of political opinions, such as the naked bias displayed here. Also, Princess? There's a new one... Ashdog137 (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think he was alluding to Princess Diana. WWGB (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Statements

Here is a problem, do the House Speaker and the Senste majority leader, who do represent the United States legislative branch or go into the non-governmental part. This is a problem when many running for the President are currently in the U.S. Senate. Richardkselby (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the way we've done the statements from other countries, leaders of legislative bodies have been cited in the country's section -- even minority/opposition leaders have been cited thusly (see France, for example), although a quote from the UK Leader of the Opposition was pruned before this page was forked and should probably be found and restored. Ashdog137 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Now, how bout Patrick Leahy , who is Chm. of the Senate Judiciare Committee, or Senators Obama or Clinton who are running for president? Richardkselby (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see what consensus would be for that -- my gut response is that they're not notable enough for inclusion in this instance. My feeling is that the appropriate parties to include would be heads of state (Presidents/Kings), foreign ministers, heads of government (prime ministers), and top legislative leaders (Speakers/Majority Leaders and Leaders of the Opposition/Minority Leaders) -- thus, committee chairmen, individual Senators/Congressmen/MPs, candidates for election, etc. wouldn't be sufficiently ranking to express their nation's position. Of course, that's just my thought -- other thoughts? Ashdog137 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Candiaates

Many U.S. Presidential candidated offered their opinions on the matter, should they be included? Richardkselby (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to this, though I think it would necessitate a separate section -- plus, if we're going to include candidates' statements, we should probably also restore statements from non-governmental sources as well (such as, for example, the U.K. Leader of the Opposition's statement). Ashdog137 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to that. Richardkselby (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree to the above as well. (Hypnosadist) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can think of a catchy name for it?Richardkselby (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do so, but I'm not too good at Wiki code, so helpRichardkselby (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We may want to limit this only to heads of state and heads of organizations. Kingturtle (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That kind of inclusion not only would inflate this article, but could receive a lot of criticism for being POV biased towards the US. There certainly is a place for it, but I would suggest that it should be in the candidates individual pages/presidential race pages. Joshdboz (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkage errors

Someone needs to copy over the links from the other page. I'm not sure how to do it. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done.  :) Ashdog137 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, problems with the references but I can't find the error in the code. Someone please have a look. --Tone 13:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see any problems on a quick look-through -- could you be more specific on where the problems appeared to be? Ashdog137 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks fine now, maybe it was a temporal problem with the browser. --Tone 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush' Comments

I think it's important to add that Bush claimed that he would bring bin Laden to justice but months later he was stating that catching bin Laden isn't a priority. This would allow a reader to realize that Bush has a tendency to change his mind quickly in matters of security.Reinoe (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't really see how that's relevant to the international reaction to Bhutto's assassination. Ashdog137 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That seems more like a POV statement against Bush, without much relation to the article at hand. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a POV anti-bush cheapshot with no relation to the assassination. (Hypnosadist) 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netherlands reaction

I added the Dutch reaction but it doesn't appear in the article :S Baldrick90 (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's there Baldrick, might be server lag... Edit Centric (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it -- the section wasn't appearing because the ref tag in the line before it wasn't properly closed. Ashdog137 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah good. Thank you. Must have overseen it. Baldrick90 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
One problem with the source citation though, it's in DUTCH! (English Wikipedia source citations should link to English text.)Edit Centric (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, is "is a huge blow for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan" a direct quote? If so, we'll want to enclose it in quotation marks. Edit Centric (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... If it's in Dutch then how can an English statement be a direct quote? Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The official statement, in English, is here. Bart van der Pligt (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International reaction source citations

This could be a big issue with this article. I'm noticing that not only the Netherlands reaction source, but others are sourced in different languages as well. As an English-speaking editor, on the English Wikipedia, how am I supposed to verify a source citation if it's in Dutch!? (Although I AM 1/4 Dutch, I don't speak the language.) We need to find English translations of each, if we can... Edit Centric (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

English translations are ideal but not required. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Bear in mind the sourcing is important because it enables editors and readers to check the source, but it is never guaranted that all readers will have immediate and easy access to and understanding of the sources. For example many journals are only available by subscription. Some books may be fairly obscure and may not be available in many libraries (and some people may not even have access to the library). Once we start considering print and CD/DVD editions, people may not even have access to the internet. Then of course people who are blind won't be able to see or read any images, books etc. People who are deaf won't be able to listen to audio records, news reports etc. I.E. You may have to go through significant effort to obtain and be able to confirm something in a source. In this particular case, the source is easily available but in Dutch. If you don't understand Dutch you will have to engage the services of someone to translate it to you. Similarly if we link to a image or a book not available in audio or whatever a blind person may require someone to describe to them or read from the text or whatever Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"the source is easily available but in Dutch"
In this case, even the source is unreliable and the translation is sloppy. The official statement mentions a "serious setback" and that the Dutch government was "horrified". In the wikipedia article it says: a "huge blow" and "disgust". That's the kind of language I'd expect from a Hollywood action hero, but not from our bleak and diplomatic Minister of Foreign Affairs...
Translating text requires a lot of skill. To make a good translation of a Dutch text into English you must be a native speaker of English, with a thorough knowledge of Dutch. Translations made by those whose native tongue isn't English are unreliable when it comes to using the right synonyms or 'tone of voice'. In cases like these, i.e. direct quotes, the translator must be qualified, or better still: an official translation must be found. Bart van der Pligt (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan template

Is this template really appropriate, since this page really should only have one article linking to it (the main article on Bhutto's assassination -- which it does)? Ashdog137 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, and I removed it. This story is FAR from over, and the article will most likely either get merged with the assassination article, or have more articles linked to it. This is not only a politics subject, but also an assassination topic as well. Currently, I'm working on the section in Assassination that addresses this...done. Edit Centric (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] are there...

are there any nations of importance to the War on Terror or the United Nations that haven't publicly reacted yet? Kingturtle (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that, but we haven't heard from Yemen, Venezuela, Panama (or most other Central American states yet!), North Korea, Vietnam, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Bolivia, Cuba, Portugal, Syria, Iraq, Jordan (surprising!), Egypt, the list is there... Edit Centric (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Are there's ones that haven't responded or ones that no one has added yet? Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth listing states that have remained silent? If Syria and Egypt are silent, isn't that noteworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturtle (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
How could we definitely know that a nation had deliberately remained silent? Perhaps the media chose not to report it, or it is not accessible via the Internet. WWGB (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Go to said nation's official head of state website and see if there is a statement. That would be one way. Kingturtle (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Um except that not every country necessarily puts every single one of their statements on their websites (have you even seen some of the 'crap' that is the official website of some countries?). Clearly this prposal is not acceptable. Your best bet would be to try and contact the embassy and see if you can get their official statement. Be aware that unless you represent a major media organisation you may not have much success. Even then it may take several weeks. Also there are 193 countries and I counted about 80-90 in this article (forgot the exact number and I only did it once) so good luck with your contacting 100 or so embassies. Of course, even once you have done this, none of this can be included in the article since it is original research. The only way we can comment on people remaining silent is if other reliable sources specifically comment on this. Saying other people remained silent because we are unable to find their statement is by definition OR. But if you work for a major media organisation (which as I stated is the only way you're really likely to have any hope of getting a response from everyone) you may have a fair chance of getting your research published anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useless Page

Do we really need this? Cant this just be summarized by world condemns assasination? This seems hardly useful, unless there are exceptions where any specific country congratulates the attackers, then yes, that would need mentioning, but otherwise 50 countries basically saying the same thing seems like a monumental waste of time, and Im sorry for being a dick about this, since it seems a lot of effort has gone to it.

My opinion is to just remove the whole thing, merge it with the assasination artile, summarize it to a sentence or two about how the world views it, and be done with it. Four years from now, no one will think, "I wonder what Netherlands thought about the attacks, *checks*, oh, they condemned it, but I wonder what SOUTH KOREA thought..*checks*...same, but wait, what about Saudi Arabia! *checks*" 213.42.2.24 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC) MADali

Agreed on all counts. What a wholly useless page. And the arguments below about whether or not some organization is an NGO or not, just in terms of criteria for inclusion on this page, are comical. 202.172.106.195 (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
At first I thought this article was of no use. But I now see why this article is of use. How many assassinations receive official statements from 80+ nations? Your not going to find that size a reaction of the assassination of Thiyagarajah Maheswaran. Why? Because the Benazir Bhutto as real significance to international politics. Therefore, it is of use to see the size of the International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Kingturtle (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I moved this from International reaction to the Benazir Bhutto assassination to maintain consistency with the other article. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy See

Is the Holy See a NGO? The quote is even explicitly referred to Tarcisio Bertone, which is correctly addressed as Secretary of State. No NGO has a Secretary of State. IMVHO it should be listed under Europe, just like any other state. What do you think? Snowolf How can I help? 10:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Vatican City response under Europe. Looks like double dipping to me. WWGB (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oooops. Question: How is Vatican City different from Holy See in this context? Snowolf How can I help? 10:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Vatican City is an actual sovereign nation whereas the Holy See is the religious organization that happens to govern it. However, I'm not sure if there should really be a difference in this case, considering everyone from the Vatican would be speaking for the church. Joshdboz (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I just came here to talk about this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The quote was just stripped out of the existing Vatican City entry and given double-billing; I'm moving it back, for the reasons mentioned here -- that's why it was listed there to begin with. Ashdog137 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Cardinal Secretary of State article states that this individual "presides over the Vatican Secretariat of State"; that article, in turn, describes the Secretariat as "perform[ing] all the political and diplomatic functions of Vatican City and the Holy See". As such, I edited the Vatican section to refer to the individual by title only, since a post-titular "of the Holy See" incorrectly limits the scope of the position which clearly encompasses both duties to the Vatican City and to the Holy See. Ashdog137 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources to include

There seems to be continuing ambiguity over what sources for comment we're including -- some entries quote opposition leaders, others have had opposition comments removed. Some even quoted candidates, but I think I caught and eliminated all those.

For the sake of argument, I think there's some distinction between leaders of opposition parties and Leaders of the Opposition (where such a position officially exists within the legislature). I'd be more inclined to include the latter than the former; however, I'd still just barely lean towards excluding both.

In my opinion, included sources should be: heads of state, heads of government, chiefs of legislature (where not head of gov't), and chief diplomatic agencies/officers. Excluded should be candidates for office, other executive officials (unless in the capacity of spokesman for one of the above, and then only unless/until one of the above releases a statement), other legislative officials (including party chiefs, committee chairmen, LotO, etc.), and the like.

I'm going to be bold and make this change now; I'd still like to hear your thoughts/suggestions/comments, though -- I brought this up earlier, but received no subsequent comment. Ashdog137 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we have got it pretty much right. I don't agree with opposition leaders (or leaders of opposition parties) being quoted - they do not represent the nation. It's mainly down to one quote per nation, with a few reasonable exceptions (eg India). Why on earth does the USA need FIVE speakers reported? It could be seen as another example of US bias on Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I continue to agree on not including opposition leaders, in that they don't represent their nation. However, for the same reason, former officials should not be included -- they no longer represent their nation, clearly, nor do they even so much as hold a position anymore (unlike opposition leaders, who often hold a formal position of "Leader of the Opposition" and, thus, have a better claim to representing an "official" viewpoint). I've pruned it back down to reflect this. Also, I noticed that most of the former officials quoted were simply multiple members of the Council of Women Leaders -- why not simply list an entry in the international category with a quote from the leader of that organization?
Finally, as to the number of speakers quoted for the USA -- in my opinion, the best way to avoid bias (pro- OR anti-USA or anybody else) is to draft a set of rules for inclusion/exclusion and stick to them. If we're eliminating legislative leaders, eliminate them for all countries; if we're including them, include them. Any exception for any given country is introducing bias toward/against that country, in the absence of some independently compelling reason (i.e. something more than "their section is too long/short"). Ashdog137 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Amnesty International.svg

Image:Amnesty International.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)