Talk:Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

message: Someone put a merge tag with Benazir Bhutto at the top of this page but refrained from leaving any reason for doing so.  I can't see any reason these articles should/could be merged (this article functions just like any breakout section), so if nobody supports this or can explain this, it should be removed. Joshdboz (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it`s no need to merging. both of articles are too long. noneed puting the merg box is vandalism, plz remove that.--Gordafarid (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal? 

message: When we say that "Bhutto's aides have refuted this version" of her death (i.e., hitting the sunroof), it seems (to me at least) a bit problematic. "Refuted" implies that her aides have demonstrated that she did not die as a result of hitting the sunroof, but when I read the linked article, it sounds more like they angrily claimed this, rather than actually proving it. I think it should be changed to "denied this claim" or something to that effect, but I thought I should post here before changing it. dcd139 (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "rejected" as that was the word used in the article the ref linked to. Joshdboz (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Refuted" in Lead 

message: Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is correst or Benazir Bhutto Assassination ?? if first is correct plz do edition to all realted articles like John F. Kennedy assassination and ... . else plz edit the name of article to correct name. regards,--Gordafarid (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This conversation occurred earlier on this page under Title with consensus and precedent in other articles leading towards the current title. However, it would seem that no rules really exist at this time. As such, I would respect consensus and leave the title as is. SorryGuy  Talk  08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I saw, I noticed that assassination articles appeared to tend towards having the assassinee's name first, followed by "assassination". I am not sure where the pages regarding "assassination of" are. Thus, I changed the title.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of article 

message: We have a separate page on International reactions to the Assassination and just a link on that should be good enough. The problem is that, some editors might push for their nation's reactions. For example, in my opinion, Iran has greater influence in Pakistan than Russia yet we have Russia's reaction and not of Iran's. And why do we have UK's reaction when EU's reaction is mentioned? UK's reaction gets more emphasis than other prominent members of EU like France and Germany? One must consider that UK doesn't have much influence in Pakistan anymore and EU's comments should be good enough. And why do we have Bangladesh's reaction? Agreed, the country was a part of Pakistan before, but what is the connection between Bangladesh and Benazir Bhutto's assassination. One can understand the inclusion of India's remarks (she has and could have played a crucial role in Kashmir dispute and Indo-Pak relations in general) and that of Afghanistan's (the conflict there is one of the reasons for the turmoil in Pakistan), but Bangladesh? Frankly, it is sad that this entire topic has come up (because these reactions are of little significance.. every leader will be like she did this.. she did that.. blah blah blah.. and we highly condemn the attack) and I just wanted to express my views. Thanks --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe we are going to get rid of the section, almost all similar articles have these sections and a main article with more. If you want to debate which to include, we can do so here. I would support adding Iran, as you have said. However, I can not endorse cutting the entire section. SorryGuy  Talk  21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I would support Iran as it seems to be the last major regional neighbor not included (after Afghanistan, India, China, and Bangladesh).  I think that should be the limit though. Joshdboz (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting rid of the section?

message: I forgot to add this page to my watchlist... I didn't realise how big an issue this would become. I didn't see International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the fact a much larger variety of responses are on there including Australia satisfies me. And frankly, i'm embarrassed by the Australian who couldn't keep his comments to himself earlier. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, don't worry about it. Joshdboz (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whoa

message: I have removed this section   due to the lack of sourcing; hence the edits are controversial.  Please refrain from adding such commentary without providing a reference from a reliable source.  Once the "controversies" are properly sourced, I will leave it to editorial discretion as to whether or not this section or the specific controversial issue should be re-added.  Risker (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Josh removed it earlier as well and I supported its removal. Even with sourcing, I think it is better to include the information in it into other sections of the article. SorryGuy  Talk  21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The responsibilities section was retitled as controversies. I changed it back, but wanted to make sure everyone else supports responsibilities as the preferred section title. SorryGuy  Talk  23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's fine for me, since the section deals with who claims responsibility for the attack. "Controversies" would be about the conflicting reports about cause of death which are going onnow. Perhaps that can be a new section or sub-section later. Ekantik talk 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversies" section 

message: According to CNN a gunman was shooting right back at her and then blew him self up, they have got live footage showing that on CNN.
Osama bin laden has said that they do not KILL womans and wer not behind this but the Army of pakistan was, now that is not evidence but the PK gov has no evidence on osama bin laden and/or al-qaeda - Al Jazeera. I'll get up a link later --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I can't find CNN video nor info that bin Laden spoke of the incident. Joshdboz (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? —BoL 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Times of India has an article on this. Also have a look at this. Thanks --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to CNN (and The Associated Press), Bin Laden did not mention Pakistan nor Bhutto's death in the tape released today. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/29/binladen.message.ap/index.html) --Mhking (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just looked it up on their home page. —BoL 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent pics!  Now the only question is whether we can use them per fair use.  Certainly they're non-replaceable. Joshdboz (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at this video clip which shows gun fires before the blast. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Claiming a screenshot for fairuse might be easier than the stills of the gunman, although there is no chance that any of this will become free before the copyright expiration. Joshdboz (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the footage on CNN, and it was much clearer on my TV. They are working on using the tapes and photos to aid in the investigation. The Pak. gov blames the taliban or bin laden claiming they intercepted a phone message, but they only provided a transcript, not a recording. So, it's to be taken with a big grain of salt until they can produce a recording of the call that was reported to have been made. Sheesh, you can see the gun actually being fired...but the people and signs blocked the view of it hitting Bhutto. :( I agree with Joshdboz about the stills of the "gunman" standing in the crowd with the sunglasses on, as it is only assumed it was indeed the gunman - at this time, anyways. BBhounder (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stunning evidence shown by CNN! And Taliban saying 

message: I think the article International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto should be summarized and merged to this one. I don't think it is neccesary to list every country's reaction separately when they can be summarized. Basically everyone expressed condolances and rejected violence, and this is said in the article like 100 times. besides, it becomes hard to read. Opinions? --Tone 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. To put everyone's ideas together into one passage does not sound possible, how are you going to find a reference that says them all together? See WP:SYNTH. Also see WP:SS on using sub-articles to ensure the main articles do not become too long. Frankly, it has to stay the way it is to ensure that people are not upset that their country is not listed. There is also precedent for these sorts of lists, see other major events that require international reaction. SorryGuy  Talk  22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, to ensure that people are not upset that their country is not listed is not really the argument I would favour. What about summarizing in a way several countries have expressed condolances, including this one (ref), this (ref), this (ref), and that one also (ref)? I don't remember separate articles for international reactions for events like this, can you pinpoint the precedent for me? Frankly, I don't object to the whole article strongly, I am just trying to see if an improvement can be done. --Tone 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point deleteing sourced factual information. (Hypnosadist) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess are correct about that argument, it is just that if you look above you will see we have already had issues. As for precedent done in a similar manner that I remember from recently see International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test and International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War. SorryGuy  Talk  22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And also International reaction to the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency. I see these pages as a real plus for Wikipedia, using the power of the Internet to bring together comprehensive world opinions in a single summary. Strong keep. WWGB (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: From an editorial standpoint a summary would achieve the same aim and is likely what would be done in Britannica, but this is notable and verifiable information so there's no real reason to get rid of the separate article. Joshdboz (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree whole-heartedly. I was around when we were proposing the article in the first place, and there is way too much information in that article to fit here. This article is already getting long. It is notable and encyclopedic. If you believe it's not, try AFD. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep them separate. They contain different information, and are each quite large. Kingturtle (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of international reaction 

message: I've managed to find 2 images of the assassin that have been uploaded under a non-free/fair-use rationale. Check it out: :Image:Bhutto_assassin_1.jpg :Image:Bhutto_assasin_2.jpg Ekantik talk 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assassin images

message: Someone added an unneed  tag here immediately after I added a detail. I did not bother to include an additional reference as it was one of the claims already made in the article used as a reference for the earlier claims. The same person later added another fact tag  again despite the fact the quote is in fact from the reference at the end of the paragraph. Generally speaking, if the entire paragraph is referenced from one source, it is not necessary to tag every single sentence. Indeed, you should always check the next reference cited and make sure it doesn't in fact verify what is mentioned before fact tagging. N.B. I didn't modify the paragraph at all other then to remove the fact tags and add the mega computer claim. I'm not the one who referenced it in that way but as stated, from my experience it's a perfectly acceptable way of referencing Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Well as I mentioned a while back this be the case and it appears I'm correct. Her husband had in fact denied a request for an autopsy . I've added this to the article. If anyone could find a better source they're welcome. Also, it would be helpful if we can confirm the timeframe i.e. when was the request made? Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopsy 

message: The lead sentence would read better, would sound less stilted, as:
:Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on ...
instead of the current:
: The assassination of Benazir Bhutto occurred on ...
The current sentence is not the way an ordinary person would speak. It sounds as if someone were trying to force fit the name of the page into a sentence. The WP:Manual of Style does not require that the name of the page appear verbatim in the lead sentence. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewording lead sentence? 

message: Anybody else see the vandalism in this section or is it just me? --66.215.251.104 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see it, please go ahead and fix it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: yea i got it too, unfortunately my schools ip was blocked and i couldn't revert it. -devel31  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.243.123 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Background Section

message: Because the main reviewer of this article has asked for a second opinion. I looked over the article. Here are a few things to fix before the article can pass:
*Per WP:LEAD the lead should be three or four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
*Numerals under 100, in most cases, should be spelled out.
*Under Cause of death, most of the paragraphs begin with "On (date)". Try and mix it up to make it more interesting.
*The following couple of sentences need refs: These persons were not pathologists and did not conduct a formal autopsy. The statement first narrates the course of treatment, from Bhutto's arrival at the hospital until she was declared dead. The second part of the statement details the head wound and notes that "Detailed external examination of the body did not reveal any other external injury". X-rays had been taken of the head wound and were interpreted in the statement. The cause of death was declared to be "Open head injury with depressed skull fracture, leading to cardiopulmonary arrest".
*This part of the last sentence under that same section needs to be cited: an account that had been greeted with disbelief by Ms. Bhutto’s supporters, other Pakistanis and medical experts.
*Under Responsibility, these refs need to be put in numerical order: [89][17][90]
*A couple of the links are dead (See here) and should be replaced.
Not much to do. Fix these in the next seven days, and I'll do a quick copy-edit and pass that article. Thanks. Nikki311 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The seven days are up, and I really don't want to have to fail the article because it is really close to GA status. I'll give the editors of this article two more days to address these concerns. After that, I'll have to fail the article. Nikki311 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikki, This may be my fault. I saw the request for a second opinion at WP:GAC and volunteered, but did not inform WP:GAC that I had offered a second opinion. My mistake. Anyways, SorryGuy responded to my concerns above, but may not have been aware of these you posted. I think in that spirit you should give the nominators additional time, because of the confusion. I'll defer to your judgement as you found issues I did not, if you want to take over as the "second opinion" Thanks, and please accept my apologies.Dave (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorryguy is aware. I contacted him on his talk page after I did the review. Nikki311 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's been eleven days, and the article cannot stay on hold forever. I'm failing it for now, but when these issues get fixed, renominate the article and notify me on my talk page. I'll look it over, so you won't have to wait so long for another review. Thanks and good luck. Nikki311 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review per 2nd opinion request 

message: I know you guys would delete this for the 500th time if I used 'ufo's as the subject.
anyway, since there is a section on conspiracies in the 9/11 page and the kennedy assasination page, i think that a sentence such as the following should be added to the 'responsibilites' part of the article:
Some people claim that because of unidentified craft appearing in the background of the rally, and because of a video which  surfaced in which Bhutto claimed that Osama bin Laden was dead, there were motives for operatives from other governments to assasinate her
would tha tbe so bad? it's just ONE sentence.
Palestinianpride (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, there are no reliable sources regarding this. As far as I know, no mainstream news outlet has reported on any conspiracy theories surrounding Bhutto's assassination, making this a different situation than, say, 9/11 (where the conspiracy theories are notable and have been reported on by the mainstream media quite a bit). The video alone is not sufficient as a source. --clpo13(talk) 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Alternative' explanation. 

message: "She was clearly shot. If you examine the video, you will found that the first shot was missed, by that time Bhutto was sweaping her face with a handkerchief. Within a moment, the second shot was fired which hit her lower back, causing her hair and scarf to lift visibally, and then she felt inside the car clearly before the blast. She was really Martyr."
Removed the previous statement. Statement is POV. If it is linked to a video and the POV is removed, I have no issue with it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: the UN and Scotland Yard have released their findings. can someone detail/synopsis in the relevant section. Lihaas (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  update inquiry 

message: Benezir Bhutto stated that Osama Bin Laden was dead, naturally she was silenced the next day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate2 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember this was mentioned in the article, including a source from BBC alongside BBC's apology for having censored the interview in question. Why on earth was this removed? Richiez (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually the interview and video is mentioned here:  Osama bin Laden#Reports_of_his_death. It would be still good to link to this article as the video contains plenty of informations relevant to this article - not the bin laden death claim but plenty of talk about the ISI and such. Richiez (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bin Laden Is Dead"

message: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/goodspeed-analysis-pakistani-journalist-‘next-target’/
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/benazir-bhutto-killed-in-a-sniper-attack-five-bullets-were-fired-on-her-updated_10010410.html
i have 2 somewhat unknown sources claiming She was shot and the bomb was to create confusion.
what do you think?  --71.178.199.89 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sniper shot her. 

message: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/12/ap/asia/main7343174.shtml
Is it relevant that investigators have accused Musharrof of involvement in this plot?   In light of the events of ths past 2 days, this might become more significant in world events...69.37.68.255 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2011 arrest warrant for Musharraf 

message: 63 railway stations, 149 bogies, and 29 locomotives were damaged within two days of Bhutto's death.
A bogie is the pivoting set of wheels underneath a railroad car. Since the list fails to mention that any railroad cars were damaged, although 29 locomotives were, I strongly suspect that the reference to "bogies" (which presently links incorrecctly to the specialized Jacobs bogie instead of just bogie) should be corrected to "railroad cars." Dick Kimball (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Casual reader/editor, not quite sure how to handle the redundant and/or inaccurate reference under Responsibility, first paragraph:
"On 27 December, al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid is said to have claimed responsibility for the assassination, telling several news outlets that "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahideen."[74] In his statement to the media, he further claimed that al-Yazid stated that al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri ordered the killing in October 2007.[75]" - Italicization added
Neither source there has a quote of al-Yazid directly saying al-Zawahiri was involved, although 74 does mention a report that suggests it. Posted here for someone a bit more experienced to sort out.
Blackraven1425 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility section redundancy/inaccuracy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080102004845/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,23599,22994503-23109,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22994503-23109,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071231064102/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,23599,22983841-1702,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22983841-1702,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130820045140/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/20/20097437-pakistans-pervez-musharraf-indicted-in-benazir-bhutto-murder-case?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/20/20097437-pakistans-pervez-musharraf-indicted-in-benazir-bhutto-murder-case?lite
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090716133642/http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071227/pakistan.html?.v=3 to http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071227/pakistan.html?.v=3
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090627045014/http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/12/27/pakistans_bhutto_assassinated_in_gun_bomb_attack/ to http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/12/27/pakistans_bhutto_assassinated_in_gun_bomb_attack/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://voanews.com/english/archive/2007-12/2007-12-27-voa12.cfm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/25/international/i120815S15.DTL
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=88394
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222065912/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2007 to http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/bhutto.dhs.alqaeda/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071228/bhutto-buried-as-pakistan-unrest-spreads.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071229/world/pakistan_bhutto_34
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsID=5173
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2007/28/index2.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsID=5161
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache%3ACI51yz1nz7kJ%3Aenglish.aljazeera.net%2FNR%2Fexeres%2F737B73AE-EE5D-4C41-8CA2-04B356FBCBC.htm+%22Bhutto+killed+in+suicide+attack%22+site%3Aaljazeera.net&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231214132/http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071229/world/pakistan_bhutto_34 to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071229/world/pakistan_bhutto_34
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231063142/http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2007/28/index2.php to http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2007/28/index2.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Though early reports indicated that she had danced with shrapnel or the gunshots"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.26.247 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean in the intro paragraph?