Talk:Asif Ali Zardari/Archive 1

start

What had landed here by some strange mistake or bug now moved to User talk:214.1.69.249 where it rightfully belongs. BACbKA 17:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have added Mr 10% in the intro, someone deleted it.. I have given a reference of BBC's official website. why is someone messing up with the page ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.112.94 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The nickname is still mentioned in the article, but we usually don't include nicknames in the lead. Compare Margaret Thatcher, whose "Iron Lady" nickname also gets no mention in the lead. Huon (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

education

Q. what is his education? --Philtime (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer. FA (high school), he proceeded for UK then for a diploma, but there is no record of him getting any diploma from UK.

Comment: The write up says he went to Karachi Grammar School. The answer to the question indicated he did his FA. Karachi Grammar School does not and never has offered FA. It only offers O'levels at the high school level. Someone needs to verify these facts. Does anyone actual have any proof of where Zardari got his high school diploma from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.193.124 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be written by biased people. Those who are against people's party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal eyes (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to support the Peopl's Party too, but how many times can one ignore the evidence and accusations of corruption which Asif Zirdari is so often at the centre of ? And what kind of a democratic party has an hereditary leadership ? And Ziradari's role in the death of Murtaza Bhutto is still unsatisfactorily explained. The article makes no reference to the nickname by which he is universally known in Pakistan- Mr.10%--Streona (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody mention what is his educational backgrond as some people say that he is only high school graduate.how far is true,besides there no mention of his education in any article on page.Majda

he also attended St.pats school in karachi where he fired his first gun shot in air for which he was thrown away from school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.27.23 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article have been modified by pro Zardari members. It is worth mentioning all the corruption charges, his own approval rating compared to the approval rating of the PPP and the opinion of the people of pakistan on how they regard Zardari compared to Benazir Bhutto. Zardari is highly controversial figure in Pakistan and this article therefore needs to represent this view. By clearing out earlier points on his corruption and allegiations of corruption and murder gives a wrong picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.175.85 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that information? Also, the article mentions his Mr. 10% nickname, the moneylaundering charges and the allegations of murder. Huon (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The corruption and murder allegations are there in the article. Did you read the article? See Asif_Ali_Zardari#Government_service_under_Bhutto, 3rd paragraph. If you think something is missing then add it, but don't forget to include citations.—SpaceFlight89 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias (2)

I am a Pakistani and this article is not accurate at all. Zardari is known as one of the most corrupt people in the history of the country and the article does not even mention it. The article couldn't have been most biased had it been written by Asif Zardari himself. Accused of ordering the murder of Murtaza Bhutto, accused of attaching a bomb to a pakistani businessman, accused of taking massive kickbacks in the polish tractor scheme - where is all this info ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.20.40 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions the Murtaza Bhutto allegations, other murder allegations (with a source detailing the businessman bomb case), and various charges of receiving kickbacks, though this is the first I've heard of the Polish tractor scheme - the Swiss customs scheme seems better-known. We even mention his "Mr. 10%" nickname. Given Zardari's long career, that seems an appropriate level of detail for this aspect of his life. Huon (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is totally inappropriate and intellectually dishonest. All you have to do is look at Encyclopedia Brittanica's portrayal of President Zardari vs. wikipedia's. Look at the NY Times bio of Zardari - "Asif Ali Zardari was described by his wife, Benazir Bhutto, as the "Mandela of Pakistan." But while she was prime minister, Mr. Zardari earned another nickname: "Mr. 10 Percent," for his reputation of demanding kickbacks on government contracts. In September 2008, he became president of Pakistan after Ms. Bhutto's assassination propelled her party into control of Parliament.- This is a very biased portrayal of Asif Zardari that is inconsistent with any major information database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.20.40 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't even tell what bias the article is supposed to have. The New York Times bio mentions his "Mr. 10%" nickname; so does this article. How is this inconsistent? Huon (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am a Pakistan citizen too and I think the article is perfectly fine. The article and the source both mention him as 'Mr. 10%'. So where is the problem. Apparently, any person who edits Wikipedia, (1) has to avoid personal opinions (2) only write information that is encyclopedic in nature (3) provide reliable sources for any claim (4) adhere the policies of biographies on living people. Thanks to Huon here, the article has been well maintained over these years. The article is perfectly neutral and has no bias. If you prefer Brittanica over Wikipedia, then its your own judgement and choice. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 14:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The only big point I saw in [1] and not here was the court decision on the amnesty. I've added that. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone has been messing w this page

Some idiot has been screwing with Zardaris page, saying he was co chairmen of the Pakistan Taxi Party, ect., I changed a few things but there is a lot more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.241.70 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey I have written Mr 10%, with the references from different websites like BBS and CNN, some-one has deleted it, why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.151.66 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you added (my advice would be to create an account; it's free, and then all your edits will be linked to your user name), but the article does mention the "Mr. 10%" nickname in the section on corruption controversies. That seems to be the proper place, what is missing? Huon (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When did he assume office as President?

He was elected President today (Sept 6); but was he inaugurated? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says that he could be inaugurated tonight, Monday or Tuesday. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Prime Beneficiary of NRO

Some background info has been deleted. Isn't that relevant in the standoff between Iftikhar Chaudhry and Zardari.

Religion

The article prominently states (in the intro) that Zardari is Shi'a, but there is no source for this, and it's not the kind of thing we want to be wrong about. Could someone identify a source (either way)? Everyking (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it from the intro pending verification, but it's still in the infobox. Everyking (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the Pakistani Shia Muslim Category, which also lists Sunni Muslims in it. Pakistan is a predominantly Sunni state and the Shias are a very tiny minority. If the head of Pakistan is a Shia, it would be well documented everywhere and all Pakistanis would be aware of this. It's the same as if a Jewish African-American became President of USA, then everyone in USA would know him very well. Some of the Shia POV pushers think that anyone with "Ali" in their name must be Shia. Ali is used by both Sunnis and Shias.--Seminoletree (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The person who keeps adding Shia claims is a banned editor Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn. Everyone please revert his/her's edits that relate to adding Shia claims and the 3rrs does not apply for this purpose. This vandal must learn that POVs and facts are not the same.--Seminoletree (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this been settled? I was surprised to see his religion was Shia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.13.71 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone saw him offering Eid Prayers on TV yesterday they'd have realized that Zardari indeed is a Shia Muslim since he was praying the Shia way (i.e leaving arms side by side instead of folding) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.151.149 (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in Pakistan and, no, I didn't see him pray on TV like the Shias. Besides, you cannot use such information which are based on watching how someone pray on TV. You need hard evidence for someone's official faith, to convince people that Asif Ali Zardari is Shia. Sunnis did not come here to claim that Zardari is Sunni, you just can't add something without having the reliable source to prove it. Why can't you just understand this?--119.30.79.189 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Think about this...what if al-Qaida militants see this article and based on seeing Zardari as Shia, they will go and try to assassinate him. In such case, whoever added the Shia stuff to the article will be held responsible for his death or anyone else who dies with him. Do you not think of such things? especially in Pakistan.--119.30.79.189 (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Zardari really is Shia, then he is Shia and we can't do anything about that. But I have asked many people and they all disagree about Zardari being a Shia.--119.30.79.189 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..... does anyone think that people like this Mr.10% do pay any minutest attention to the religion? does it matter to public whether a corrupt person belongs to sunni, shia, barailvi, wahabi, salafi, maliki, shafaee, humbalee etc.... I believe if given a choice every sect will try to denounce zardari. the important thing is that whoever he is, he should be stopped from filling his bank accounts by ruining the country and destroying the fate of everyone of us, no matter we are sunni, or shia, or whatever. Similarly it doesn't matter for a good person as well (e.g. Quid-e-Azam, Dr. AQ Khan) no one should bother if he is from a specific sect, the only thing that matters is his action and contribution for the nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.234.226 (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Vali Nasr et al refer to Zardari as Shia but provide no evidence. Neither is there any evidence that he is Sunni. At the end of the the argument, there is no evidence either way unless we are going to conclude that the more people repeat something, the truer it becomes. If that's the case, Wikipedia just lost all credibility. More to the point, though, it does a disservice to this article to keep such a contest bit of information in the article. What purpose does it possibly serve? Until there is some actual documentation of her affiliation with one sect or another, it should not be included. Period. People keep changing both this page and the Bhutto page and it needs to stop. Wikipedia is not a place for sectarian squabbling. Either get some real documentation or don't change this again. Bill Thrace (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Vali Nasr is an academic specializing in the Middle East and in the relation of Islam and politics. Could you please elaborate why his book shouldn't count as a reliable, scholarly source? I don't know about Bhutto, but if we have reliable sources referring to Zardari as Shia and no sources to the contrary, why shouldn't we provide the most precise information we can? Huon (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Vali Nasr is an academic specializing in the Middle East and in the relation of Islam and politics, and, as such, he is an authority on these subjects. But on the personal religion of Asif Ali Zardari? Even Vali Nasr should be required to show his work on this one, which he has never done. If Vali Nasr says Zardari is secretly Hindu, that doesn't make it true. I don't think Wikipedia should provide "the most precise information we can." When there's reasonable doubt due to lack of or poor quality evidence, I think we should refrain from posting questionable material as 'factual.' Wikipedia should house facts, not "whatever we've got until we find something better." Would you be comfortable posting in Wikipedia that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim? Because I can guarantee you there's plenty of statements that make that assertion, including (sadly) from people with advanced degrees. Frankly, this entire article is extremely problematic and is clearly being edited frequently by political friends/foes of the subject. Personally, I think it should be stripped down to verifiable facts and locked down. Bill Thrace (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anybody claiming that Zardari is secretly Hindu. I'm actually not aware of anybody providing any source whatsoever for any religion besides Shia Islam. Thus, I don't see any reason to doubt the academic writing on something well within his area of expertise, even if he doesn't show his work. Maybe he assumed Zardari's religion to be common knowledge? Anyway, per WP:V we don't strive for the ultimate truth, but for what can be verified from reliable sources. Huon (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What sort of sick minds work on Wikipedia? User:Bill Thrace i would like to remind you please stop confusing people by removing facts that are public and based on just claims. Zardari is Shia every one knows that, by the way no one cares even if he is a Shia neither do i, the thing is Wikipedia is all about mentioning facts and that is what i am trying to do here. Vali Nasr is highly specialized academic scholar for Middle East, Islam and politics his book should be considered reliable these biases made by you are also not making any sense. Answer me are you even a Pakistani? If you are not, you are certainly not act wisely. And if you are, you are unaware of these facts or your trying to be an ignorant. If any body here lives in Karachi i would recommend them to pay a visit to Clifton block 2 where "Bilawal House" the residence of former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir and current private residence of President Zardari is located, there you'll be able to spot a large Black Flag called "Alam" flying over the Bilawal House. Its a Symbol of Shia Islam, and that evidence is as public as it could be. By the way some gentleman above acted as a racist oxymoron and mentioned Shia just a tiny part of Pakistani population, i may remind him Shia Muslims make up 35% of the total Muslim Population of Pakistan. And perhaps this link will further proves this case:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkxhasP3pCU&feature=related , Benazir and Zardari pay visit to the one of the holiest sites for Shia Islam in Karbala and Najaf after the Holy Kabbah and Grand Mosque of Nawabi. Paki90 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Political Polls

Serious questions have been raised about the methodology used in the poll that was referenced, and, more generally, the ability to perform a legitimate political poll in Pakistan's current security situation Wasiq Ali (August 20, 2009). "Campaign against President Zardari; Elections matter, not polls". Retrieved August 26, 2009.. I'm looking into this further to ensure that anything added maintains NPOV.

NPOV issues

The entire article could use attention from someone more familiar with the history of Pakistani politics than I am. The language used is alternately editorially inappropriate and downright biased at times. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... from the article:

In a short period, that started with the death of Benazir Bhutto on Decmeber 27, 2007, Asif Ali Zardari has made his mark as a shrewd and a conniving politician justifying deceit on the the grounds of expediency

....now that's FAR from the neutral point of view, and it cites a very questionable source... - Eric (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

it dosent matter that either zardari is a sunni or shia, but as long as he is a muslim he is premitted to be a president

Though it should not matter what Asif Ali Zardari's religious sect is... because as Muslims... we are all equal in the eyes of Allah, Almighty. Islam has many sects.... 72 to be precise. Shaafa'i...Maaliki...Hanafi....Humbaly.... yet we all adhere to the basic pillars of the religion sent to us by Allah thru Muhammad (S.A.W.S)... BUT in the case, However, just so that the confusion is cleared up... let me shed some light on this matter.

YES.. Asif Ali Zardari is a SHIA MUSLIM. So was Benazir Bhutto.. Benazir through his Iranian Mother.. Nusrat Bhutto as well as through her Father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Asif Ali Zardari... the son of Hakim Ali Zardari...has his Shia roots not only from his fathers side but from his Maternal Grandmother as well... who was an Iraqi Shia lady who had married his grandfather and moved to fatohar Zardari, a village named after them near Nawabshah... between Sukrund and Hala.

You can see.. if you ever visit Bilawal House in Clifton Karachi... The Primary residence for both Benazir and Asif, there is an ALAM very visibly fixed on the roof of Bilawal House. ALAM is a type of Flag or a Symbol.. which was used in the Battle of Karabala by the Army of Imam Hussain (A.S.) the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.S.). AND YES.... an Alam is only put up in the houses of shia people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.34.216 (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a doubt that Zardari is shia. The question seems to be whether we should note it in the infobox. I think we should; we routinely give the most precise denomination known for christian politicians (George W. Bush: United Methodist, Clinton: Southern Baptist, George H.W. Bush: Episcopalian, and so on), and I see no reason not to give the same amount of detail for a muslim politician. Thus, I'll re-add it. Huon (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but all that is considered W:Original Search. The 2 sources cited in the infobox for the shia claim are NOT Reliable because they are just personal POVs of the writers. Vali Nasr is a shia nationalist and so is the other guy. You need a reliable source telling that Zardari is a Shia, and why can't you find this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.0.116 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Since one of the sources is a book published by a renowned scholar, it hardly can be either called "personal POV of the writer", dismissed as unreliable or called "original research". If Nasr is a "shia nationalist" (whatever that is), his article doesn't mention it, and his scholarly work should not be dismissed just because we don't like his conclusions. Has anybody published anything disagreeing with him on this point? Unless there's some reliable source casting doubt on Zardari' religion, I see no reason to dismiss the reliable source we have; thus I'll re-add the sources and again give Zardari's religion as Shi'ite. Huon (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on man it's a fact that Asif Zardari belongs to the Baloch people ethnic group and all Baloch are Sunni Muslims. To claim that a Baloch leader is a Shia you need to provide some convincing evidence. Vali Nasr's own article does not mention his Shia sect and that does not mean he is not Shia. Someone is removing that info from his article because I've added it before with a reliable source attached. The fact is that he and his Iranian father both are Shias, you can easily search that on the internet. Does it take a genius to figure out that 95% Iranians are Shias? Reading Valy's work clearly gives the impression that he is a nationalist of Shia sect and Iran because that's all he deals in. His books and works with names like "the shia revival" is a clear sign that he is a shia nationalist expressing his own personal vision. What Shia revival is going on? Can you show me any work or findings by a non-Shia or even a non-Muslim who believes or thinks that Shia sect is reviving? So this obviously shows that Nasr cannot be trusted as a source for popular people's religious sect. You don't even know what "shia nationalist" is so that explains alot about you.--119.73.1.149 (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Baloch people article disagrees. Most Baloch people seem to be Sunni, but not all. And unless you can provide a source that actually contradicts Nasr, I don't think your claims are sufficient to dismiss him. (By the way, given that Nasr is an adviser to Obama on Iran, I doubt he's an Iranian nationalist - those would be rather unpopular in Washington, I'd assume.) Wikipedia reports what sources say, and if a book by a professor says he's Shiite, and no sources say otherwise, I see no reason not to report that. Huon (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't even link the page right so that indicates that you haven't read it. If so then show me where it disagrees? The Baloch people are all Sunnis....read it again and do a little research online. Are you saying whatever religious sect this professor gives to people we have to agree with it and accept it? That's how kids think and that's not how you suppose to do this. In most cases a person's sect in religion is determined by their own admission, not by others. I am reoving the unreliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--119.73.0.187 (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my broken link; something like that surely couldn't happen to you. Anyway, the Baloch people article says: "The Baloch are predominantly Muslim, with most belonging to the Hanafi school of thought of Sunni Islam, but there are also a significant number belonging to Shia school of thought in Balochistan." That's not quite what you claimed. And when we have sources saying that Zardari is Shiite and no sources saying otherwise, we can't dismiss the sources we have because we don't like what they say. By the way, Nasr is the author of Military rule, Islamism and democracy in Pakistan (2004), published in the Middle East Journal. So apparently he is not just an expert on Iran, but also has a history of publishing on Pakistan, and according to WP:RS: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." I fail to see why Nasr is considered unreliable. You still haven't provided any sources stating that Zardari isn't Shiite. Huon (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Findings reliable sources for such minor details about which sect of specific religion people practice is something I'm sure you agree is very difficult in most cases. That's like trying to find information explaining someone's exact penis size. Are you saying Nasr is a magician or some kind of a wizard who can guess everyone's personal faiths? The only way for us to believe Nasr is for him to show us where he got the knowledge of Zardari being a Shiite. Just because there is no mentioning of him being a Sunni doesn't mean he isn't. Also, you keep tellimg me that Baloch article says this and that...show a trusted source that says Baloch have Shias. If you were smart you would not rely on another Wiki article in this argument.--119.73.0.182 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre. Have you read Nasr's book? I haven't (and my local library doesn't carry it, so I can't), but I see no reason to believe that he is just making up Zardari's religion (which, by the way, is also mentioned in one of our sources for him being Baloch - probably you will declare that source unreliable as well because it disagrees with your preconceived notions?). We also seem to have reliable sources about most of, say, the American presidents' denominations, so finding such sources for sufficiently prominent people can't be impossible. Before I try to find more reliable source about Baloch religion, what kind of source would you accept as "trusted"?

And concerning the Baloch people article, may I remind you that you brought it up, here claiming almost explicitly (and wrongly) that it declared all Balochi to be Sunni. I agree that the Baloch people article is not the most well-sourced, but your claims in connection with it are a little absurd.

Given the currently known sources, I see no reason to remove the "Shia" part and will re-add it, but I'll also ask for a third opinion. Huon (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

3PO

If this cannot be settled here, then it should be brought up to the wp:RSN. They are better equipped to examine sources for reliability questions. NJGW (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Huon (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a reply: "Nasr is a widely recognized scholar and W. W. Norton & Company is a reputable publisher." That should settle whether it's a reliable source. Huon (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about reliable source. Read Wikipedia:RSN#Biography_of_Benazir_Bhutto. If Vali Nasr says the sky is green instead of blue are we suppose to believe that BS? We need something more than a Shia Iranian telling us that Asif Zardari is Shia. Vali Nasr himself is a Shia like the rest of the 95% people of Iran but you don't believe that because it doesn't mention it in his article. Why is it hard for you to do a quick search on him and his father instead of wasting time arguing here? This means you are confused or just trying to be ignorant. We are living in the "Information Age" where we can instantly search to verify anything of the past and present. To understand what particular sect a person belongs to you would need that person himself to answer. Sect is not a race, ethnicity, a family tree or a bloodline. It's something that can be changed at any time from one thing to another. Shias are determined enemies of Islam and they believe that the 90% of all Muslims are infidels. If God himself somehow comes down to earth and tells the Shias they are wrong they still won't believe God. You also have hard time believing that all Baloch are Sunni. You think because some Baloch live in Iran so there must be Shias among those Baloch. The entire Baloch section of Iran is Sunni, so is the Kurd section in western Iran.--119.73.6.234 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read the discussion on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's religion - so what? I also believe that Nasr is a Shia, but again, so what? Wouldn't a Shia be better prepared to recognize another Shia than, say, a Hindu or a Christian? If your biased claims about Shias were true, wouldn't a Shia be unlikely to claim that an "infidel" is a true believer? Doesn't your claim about the unlikeliness of Shias changing their religion contradict your claim that religion is "something that can be changed at any time from one thing to another"?

It's not my task to do a "quick search" on Zardari or his father - the article contains a reliable source giving his religion, and if you disagree, the onus is on you to provide a source to the contrary. I asked for that repeatedly, but you have not given one. Apparently either there are none to be found, or you're trying to make me do your work. If it's that quick - do it, provide a reliable source stating that Zardari is not Shia, and we can add that information to the article. Huon (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Asif Ali Zardari:Mental Health Problems

Mental Health problems are clearly referenced to reliable external references and should not be removed as this constitutes vandalism which is heavily frowned upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Bassett (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The section in question is headed by a misleading section header, implying a continuing condition. The section itself gave a one-sided presentation of the facts. Furthermore, it was located in the "Controversies" section, implying that it's a controversy, when it really wasn't. The removal was clearly identified as a WP:BLP issue for the misleading header and one-sided presentation. Furthermore, the relevant content is already in the article, in context. The section [2] needs to be removed. Gimmetrow 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious allegations said to have been raised by Newsweek, Time, etc., and our reference is a blog? Yeah, sure... And of course we don't mention that according to the same article, he was fit again by August 2008. Huon (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was reported by at least the Telegraph, see ref#13 in the current article. This article has other BLP problems, of course, but this one seemed particularly bad to me. Gimmetrow 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear enough. Yes, that episode happened, and the blog used as a "source" for the removed paragraph linked back to the Daily Telegraph (and probably was a copyright violation of that very Daily Telegraph article). Still the removed paragraph was completely one-sided, gave the weakest source available while mentioning more reliable sources, and eliminated context. The way we deal with this episode now seems much better. Huon (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey where did the Mental Illness portion go???????

Five days ago it was there but now there's nothing............What the hell is this.It makes wikipedia unreliable.......

Well, the mental illness info should be there. It was in his medical records. (Adonia Ji)

Yes he has a mental illness, but we need reliable references to prove that...also since the article is protected most of the times...you have to be a confirmed/autoconfirmed user in order to edit it... Farjad0322 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok here is the link and reference. Now put that section back. "Mr Zardari used the medical reports to successfully fight a now defunct English High Court case in which the Pakistan government sought to sue him over alleged corruption. " -- see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2622123/Pakistan-presidential-candidate-Asif-Ali-Zardari-suffering-from-severe-mental-problems.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.44.122 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A separate section about this would be inappropriate undue weight. The topic is mentioned in the article, and has been for a long time, using that very source. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Balochi

You should mention that he is Balochi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.146.83 (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Baloch - Sindhi

There is an official govt site, which is cited, which says he was born in a Baloch family from Sindh. What is the dispute here? Gimmetrow 12:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Gimmetrow, I can see the source for the confusion. Apparently, to a degree Zardari is "both", with many sources labeling him Sindhi - though it's hard to determine whether they mean ethnicity or province of origin. I believe the "Baloch family from Sindh" formulation borrowed from the government site makes this duality sufficiently clear. Huon (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Asif Zardari is a Sindhi

President Asif Ali Zardari is a Sindhi, BBC has also published that he's a Sindhi, and I've given almost 40,50 sources, WHY it's being reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyebhutto (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked some of the sources but not all. The ones I checked did not clearly place him in the ethnic group "Sindhi people" as opposed to simply "from Sindhi". Is there some status associated with one ethnicity or the other than I'm not catching? Gimmetrow 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gimmetrow. We can probably take the presidential website as Zardari's own opinion, which seems to be that he's Baloch. Also consider the Nightwatch source: "chief of the Zardari tribe, a Baluchi sub-tribe that lives in Sindh Province, but is accepted as Sindhi." I'd assume that most of those 30 sources "accept Zardari as Sindhi" without further reflection. Those I checked were either ambiguous, called him "from Sindh" or even just named Sindh as his powerbase. If he weren't Baloch, probably someone would mention that he falsely claims to be. Huon (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sindi is not a race, ethnicity or a tribe. It is just a term used in Asia for people from certain places, like their hometown. For example it's like calling someone in America as a New Yorker, meaning they've lived enough time in New York to be called such. We know that New Yorker is not a race, ethnicity or a tribe.--119.73.2.144 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He is Baloch by ethnicity. There is no such thing as "Sindhi" ethnicity. Being born in Sindh doesn't change his Baloch ethnicity. Baloch are a minority group in Pakistan and they are constantly oppressed by the majority Punjabis. They don't even leave alone the articles of Baloch people.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Crimes Act

I'm not sure that the section on the Cyber Crimes Act is accurate. I realize that it references a Sky News article, which would ordinarily be sufficient, but I am having trouble finding any primary reference that refers to a Cyber Crimes Act other than the one passed in 2007. If this is the Cyber Crimes Act being referred to, it predates Zardari's tenure and therefore would not be germane to this article.

Moreover, initial research has resulted in a significant amount of contradictory reports not only about the specifics of alleged legislation under Zardari, but also whether or not it has actually been implemented, or if it was simply in discussion. If the Zardari government discussed, but did not pass new legislation, that would need to be noted as such. Saying that "Zardari passed" new legislation would be factually inaccurate.

Because of the apparent confusion and the rather exceptional nature of the allegations involved, I'm reverting this section until clearer sources that describe the facts are found. Bill Thrace (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 62.24.245.195, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} MR 10%

62.24.245.195 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Already duly mentioned. Huon (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambassador giving the President a clean bill of health

I have removed the text about the Pakistani ambassador to the United States giving Zardari a clean bill of health. The ambassador has no authority or qualifications to issue any such attestation. He is not a medical or psychological professional. As the text read it served only one purpose, i.e. to obfuscate and sow doubt on the reliable sourced reports about the president's mental health issues. If we are to present contradictory opinions then these need to come from someone competent to form such opinions. __meco (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ambassador is not qualified to issue such statements. Farjad0322 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the ambassador isn't qualified to examine Zardari in person, he just relates the Pakistani government's opinion on Zardari's health to the US media. He's perfectly qualified to do so, and the official position on the issue seems notable enough for inclusion. Huon (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Pakistani government wants to make itself look utterly ridiculous, and the ambassador explicitly makes the statement about Zardari on behalf of the Pakistani Cabinet, then, by all means, let the information stand fully qualified, i.e. something akin to: "The Pakistani Ambassador has issued a statement on behalf of the country's Cabinet that they find that the President has no current mental condition requiring psychiatric help or medication." But of course they wouldn't present themselves as a college of imbeciles in that fashion, which is exactly why the ambassador has been asked to issue a pseudo-attributed statement where we must infer that he presents the position of the Cabinet without its members being actually liable for what he says. As the quote from the ambassador read when I removed it it was in my view a blatantly inappropriate non-committing spin attempt with no informational value to Wikipedia's readers whatsoever, on the contrary it was purely obfuscatory. __meco (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. If the Pakistani ambassador speaks in his official capacity, as he did here, he automatically speaks on behalf of the Pakistani government. Also note that at that time Zardari wasn't yet the president of Pakistan. Huon (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I used the term Cabinet because that is much more clearly defined than "government". Obviously an ambassador speaks on behalf of his or her government when making public announcements such as the one about Zardari's mental health, but as an encyclopedia we cannot use a government as an authority on mental health issues. At best we can vouchsafe individuals (or delimited groups of individuals) their say on issues which concern them closely but on which they may not have any special competence to offer an opinion. That was what I suggested when I presented a hypothetical scenario where the ambassador would attribute his claim to would-be facts to a defined group. But that is not what the ambassador did. He did not attribute the opinion which to many readers unaccustomed to practicing critical reading would appear quite authoritative. We as responsible editors of this encyclopedia should not promulgate and perpetuate this fallacy. __meco (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We routinely cite governmental (or corporate) spokespersons for an organization's official position. Pakistan had an obvious interest in Zardari's mental health, it had the resources to ascertain it, and while the ambassador didn't name his sources, claiming that he didn't have sources in the first place is also fallacious. We properly attributed that statement to the ambassador; our readers will have to form their own opinion. Huon (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Listen everyone! It is best that we involve the administrators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan in this. Who knows better than administrators THAT are a part of Pakistan. Agreed? Farjad0322 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would admins who happened to have put their name on a particular project member list be more qualified than regular content editors to apply Wikipedia content policies? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement does not say "clean bill of health" - it says "does not currently need psychiatric help or drugs for a mental condition", and attributing it to an ambassador without identifying any medical qualifications is enough for most readers to suspect a political motivation, although we don't actually know that the statement is not based on a doctor's opinion. The 2007 statement is itself suspect of being politically or legally motivated. If nothing else is said, then that appears authoritative and unquestioned. If the 2007 statement is going to be reported, then so should other significant related statements. Both these views were part of the political landscape at the election, and if the PPP/Zardari view is not presented, the article is not neutral. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is very close to being neutral if not completely. But can you think of anything nice to write about this President. You will only find more controversies of him. And why we need to involve WikiProject Pakistan is because it has editors who know Pakistan AND Wikipedia policies very well. Its best we collaborate with them. Farjad0322 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Corruption

Someone deleted all the corruption cases against Zardari in Switzerland, etc which highlight a big part of his political career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterincubus (talk • contribs) 06:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

The Switzerland case is still mentioned under Asif Ali Zardari#Early political career. Huon (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Mr 10%" edit war

Aashah86 is currently edit-warring for the inclusion of Zardari's nickname and of a remark regarding the corrupt origin of Zardari's fortune in the leading paragraph. This seems inappropriate. The article already mentions both the nickname and the alleged corruption, and though there are serious allegations raised, I've yet to see a source stating that Zardari's fortune was "Acquired mostly through corruption" as Aashah86 claims. This may actually be a violation of WP:BLP. Huon (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)