Talk:Asif Ali Zardari/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 [6] 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 [7] 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)

This is not a neutral page .This page is just a representation of typical morons of Punjab

The man once said" I have even forgotten the persons who cut-off my tongue". All the allegations regarding to his corruption are corrupt themselves. In contrast if we see "Nawaz Sharif's" page on wkiki, we don't find, Asghar khan's case(the greatest political and monetory fraud in Pakistan done by Nawaz Shrif), His agreement with Musharaf, withdrawal of 22,000 Sindhi employees, His Anti-Muhajir operations in Karachi, Deduction of provincial revenues for three provinces and many things more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.240.132 (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Its WIKIPEIDA not a political blog

Please everyone when writing something about political stuff, plz remain neutral..Dont mention Punjabi, sindhi, etc HunterZone (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of event

[8] Let's discuss this. It seems to me some people did something nominally "for" some PPP prisoners, which included Zardari, but were unsuccessful. I doubt the PPP prisoners organized the event from prison. Did the event have any effect on their lives? How exactly is this event relevant to Zardari? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If someone does stupid and criminal things while mentioning Zardari, that's still not relevant to Zardari unless Zardari is either involved in the acts or his reaction to the acts is significant. Right now, there's no indication that Zardari promoted the hijacking, knew of it beforehand or even cared afterwards. Huon (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I second that. The event is not too significant to include in this article. This should be removed. Sarmadhassan (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Supposed marriage

There are rumors that Zardari married a Tanweer Zamani in Dubai; this piece was given as a source. It gives two blogs as its sources, meaning it's not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. For comparison: Zamani denies ever meeting Zardari, Zardari threatens to sue (the article explains that this is "a rumour posted on several hitherto unheard of blogs and websites"). This story looks like an internet rumor being exploited by Zardari's critics. Huon (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Telegraph story is a reliable source, not it all comes to whether it is compatible with BOLP or not. I do not support adding even original content based on rumors. Sarmadhassan (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph story reports a denial of the rumour. I don't see a good reason to include this rumour at this time. If the subject of the article officially denied the rumour with some commentary, maybe, but that's not happened. Gimmetoo (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead edits

Mni9791 changed the lead to read:

Asif Ali Zardari (Urdu: آصف علی زرداری; Sindhi: آصف علي زرداري; born 26 July 1955) is the 11th and current President of Pakistan and the Co-Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). He is the widower of Benazir Bhutto. His political career has been mired by corruption, for which he has served 8 years in prison, and ineptitude. During the premiership of Benazir Bhutto he became widely known as Mr. 10 Percent because he demanded a flat ten percent kickback for every government contract. As President, his attempt to prevent the reinstatement of judges failed after massive protests led by Nawaz Sharif, his chief political rival. He suffered further political embarrassment for flirting with Sarah Palin and for going to his French chateau a few days after the 2010 Pakistan floods .

There are several problems with that. Firstly, it's a flat-out violation of WP:NPOV. Allegations of misconduct completely overwhelm the lead, even at the cost of removing more important facts such as his wealth (which probably is related to said misconduct). Is Zardari's "flirting" with Palin really more important than him effictively inheriting his power from his wife after her assassination? Secondly, while Mni9791 now added sources, those sources don't say what they're supposed to support: The Economist does not mention that Zardari was inept, but rather that he was never actually convicted for corruption, USA Today's mention of "corruption allegations" becomes "he demanded a flat ten percent kickback" in Mni9791's writing, and so on. For these reasons, I've reverted the edits. Huon (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are completely right in many of the contexts. Instead, my new version places your lead entry (which was the original before the edit) first and foremost. I placed his corruption misconduct in a seperate paragraph. the reason i felt the need for his misconduct to be mentioned is because Zardari is in many ways defined by his corruption. You can not find a single western news article that does not introduce him in such a manner. (Mni9791 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

I agree. his fliriting with sarah palin may seem insignificant compared to his other deeds. But at the same time, this action has also defined his personality in front of Pakistanis... see sources. I also removed the inept part. I realized that that was unsourced and introudces bias. (Mni9791 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

At the same time his reinstatement of judges has been one of the most striking defeats in his Presidency and it should without dobut be mentioned. I have tried to improve the article and its flaws as much as I can. by all means, point out the errors in the edit instead of supplanting it entirely. (Mni9791 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

I agree with Huon this is something which definitely cannot go in lead. "His political career has been mired by corruption.... " makes it go into section called Political Career which is already there. For the lead it is blatant violation of WP:NPOV Sarmadhassan (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with Mni9791 that the allegations of corruption are significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, though of course we should be precise and call them allegations - Zardari has not been convicted of corruption, and the various trials all came to naught. Nevertheless, these claims have been raised against Zardari for quite some time, and as Mni9791 notes, hardly any source discussing Zardari fails to mention them. But none of the various other controversies, scandals and political conflicts are significant enough for the lead. The reinstatement of judges, for example, should go into the section on his presidency. I have added "allegations of" to the corruption sentence (which may have to be reworded further) and removed the rest from the lead. Huon (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Point #1: Huon. I would like to point out that corruption with Zardari is NOT simply allegations. As the sources point out, HE HAS SERVED 8 YEARS IN PRISON for corruption. He was CONVICTED of corruption!! (Mni9791 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Point #2: Pointing out he has served charges on corruption is NOT a violation of WP:NPOV. Just like it is not a violation to for Jeffrey Dahmer's article to have his "gruesome charges". The same goes with every convicted person. It is NOT FOR YOU to decide which crime is deserving enough to list him as CONVICTED or ACCUSED. As Wikipedians, our job is not to asses but simply to report the facts. (Mni9791 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Point #3: He has been WIDELY CALLED Mr. 10% and has become HIS MOST WIDELY KNOWN nickname. I repeat again--- LOOK AT SOURCES. (Mni9791 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Point #4: READ THE SOURCES. His plan to prevent reinstatement the JUDGES severely weakened his PRESIDENCY. Just like Barack Obama's page lists the most significant events in his administration such as the stimulus package, health care act, banking reform act and etc... WE MUST ALSO LIST THE SIGNIFICANT events in the Zardari administration. WHY is mentioning the 2010 Pakistan floods, which was the largest disaster in the history of Pakistan, and his handling of it not be mentioned??? WHY is the reinstatement of judges event not be mentioned? In fact, the reinstatement of judges has been front-line NEWS in Pakistan since before Musharraf's emergency rule and till his departure. ALL THE MAJOR opposition parties campaigned on THAT issue. Are you not aware of Pakistan's current events????? (Mni9791 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

As my final word in the issue: STOP TRYING TO POLITICIZE THIS DISPUTE in your attempt to defend Zardari. REPORT THE FACTS, NOT ASSES THE FACTS. (Mni9791 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

It is also my right to request that YOU do not change this page until you address these points. Wikiedits must first be agreed upon on the Discussion page before arbitrarily imposing your own opinionated version of the page. (Mni9791 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Regarding your first two points, have you actually read your own sources? Let me quote one of them: "He was imprisoned, but not convicted, by both Mr Sharif and Mr Musharraf, on charges including murder and corruption."[9] The BBC does mention a conviction only to follow up with a paragraph stating that subsequently a mistrial was declared following a major scandal involving the judge. No source states that he was actually involved in corruption without qualifiers such as "alleged" or "accused". Indeed our job is not to assess but simply to report the facts.

Fine. You are right on your point. But where has the article, and specifically my edits, has it mentioned that he was convicted of his crimes?? Nowhere. There is absolutely no mention of it. And I don't understand why the lead can not mention where he has spent nearly an entire decade of his life-- in prison. I think that fact has enough significance. (Mni9791 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

and by the way, for the record, though I will not insist on including the term "conviction", I still claim he was convicted. This is the reason,"He spent several years in jail on charges of corruption. He was labeled "Mr 10%"." "Pakistani investigators accused the couple of embezzling as much $1.5 billion from government accounts. British and American private investigators working for the government of Mr. Sharif, her political rival, produced a thick volume of documents tracing what they said were multimillion-dollar kickbacks to the Zardaris in return for government contracts and a web of bank accounts across the world used to hide the money." NYTimes source (Mni9791 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC))The sources tell the reader about his unproven charges relating to his alleged move "of tying a remote-controlled bomb to the leg of a businessman and sending him into a bank to withdraw money from his account as a pay-off." and of his alleged accusations relating to his "arrest and charged with a number of offences including the murder of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, his wife's brother. " Zardari has served in prison numerous times-- the most recent from 1996 to 2004. He also served from 1990 to 1993. He has dealth with multiple different murder charges. None of this is mentioned in the lead. Whether it should, consensus between me and you will decide it. But for the time being, I will defer the matter to you. (Mni9791 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Regarding the third and fourth point, please have a look at WP:LEAD, which says: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." The article is currently awfully short on content about Zardari's presidency, and it did not mention the judge reinstation at all (except in the lead). If anything about his presidency should be summarized there, it's probably the constitutional reform, which effectively gutted the powers of the President of Pakistan. Everything else should be mentioned in the appropriate sections before it gets elevated to this level of prominence. The judge reinstation, for example, needs much more context to be of any help to the reader. Regarding the "Mr. 10%" nickname, that has indeed been widely reported, and it is mentioned in the appropriate section of the article. But we generally do not mention nicknames in the lead of articles, and never bolded unless it's actually used by the subject himself (say, for professional wrestlers). Have a look at Margaret Thatcher: Even though her "Iron Lady" nickname has its own Wikipedia article, it doesn't get bolded. And George W. Bush was widely called "Dubya" by his detractors, yet the article does not mention that nickname at all. I am not convinced Zardari's nickname is important enough for the lead.

Fine. Lets mention the constitutional reforms that have limited Zardari's powers exponentially. Lets also mention his removal of authority relating to nuclear arsenal of the country (which has domestic and global significance).

I agree with you. This needs much more context. In the next few days, I will work on significantly improving this article to elaborate on the context of this situation. Fine. I agree that Mr. 10 Percent should not be bolded and I will soon unbold it asap. But at the same time, for the record I would like to point out that the nickname "Dubya" and the nickname "Mr. 10 Percent" is not equivalent fair comparison. The reasoning is simple: "Mr. 10 Percent", unlike "Dubya", has direct explicit negative connotations. And Bush was not only called Dubya by his detractors but by some of his supporters also. I will not elaborate more on this because the point will soon be irrelevant to our discussion. (Mni9791 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

But the reinstatement is very significant. NYTimes source: "As protests increased, the government banned a national protest demonstration in March and arrested hundreds of political workers, deepening popular discontent with Mr. Zardari, whose popularity had already been plummeting. Pressure mounted on the government to reach an accommodation with Mr. Sharif. Early on March 15, though, police detained Mr. Sharif at his house in Lahore, hours before he was to address a planned demonstration, and arrested supporters protesting outside his home. But the next day, Mr. Zardari announced a surprising compromise -- he agreed to reinstate Pakistan's independent-minded former Supreme Court justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Mr. Sharif had urged the move, and Mr. Zardari had for months refused. Demonstrations were called off."

(Mni9791 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Regarding your right to request that I don't undo your changes: Have a look at WP:BRD. You made the bold edits, got reverted, and instead of establishing consensus on the talk page, reverted me right back. You may request whatever you want, but I am under no obligation not to revert your changes, which bluntly violate Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP.

And finally the politicizing: Would you mind pointing out how exactly I try to politicize this dispute? I was not aware I did. Huon (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And I apologize for my rant. It was excessive. But I dont believe it was uncalled for because you completely arbitrarily discounted my edits without clear explanation at all. That is why I was annoyed.(Mni9791 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Most of User MNI9791's edits are less than ideal. They remove much of Zardari's POV while emphasizing the opposition, eg [10] removing Zardari's claim the charges were political; whatever we may think of Zardari's views, his response to negative allegations should be reported if we report the negative allegations. I'm not sure the education edits are sources [11]. Furthermore, we there may be issues of balance, by having a lot of text on some things while not much text on other things. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gimmetoo's assessment. There is a serious neutrality problem: Negative statements about Zardari are presented as fact and exaggerated:

• "[...] because he demanded a flat ten percent kickback for every government contract" - we don't have a single source going further than saying it was alleged he demanded kickbacks.
• "He suffered further political embarrassment for flirting with Sarah Palin" - the source does not use the term "embarassment" and does not discuss political repercussions for Zardari at all.
• "The school couldn't be located and does not exist." - almost all sources agree that Zardari's educational institutions in London could not be located. None claim they don't exist.

In contrast, Zardari's point of view is either removed outright or heavily couched in qualifiers such as "claimed". Above, Mni9791 said that we should just report the facts and not assess them. I agree, but that goes for him, too. Also, his last edit seemed to add claims which look sourced but are not actually supported by the sources given, such as the claim that "He generally stayed out of his wife's first administration" - despite holding posts as investment and environment minister?

Besides, many of Mni9791 recent additions, especially those about Zardari's youth, are taken word by word from the sources, raising issues of copyright violation. We should rewrite them in our own words. Huon (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gimmetoo stated, "Furthermore, we there may be issues of balance, by having a lot of text on some things while not much text on other things."

I have not finished editing. This page requires a lot of time. (Mni9791 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

User:Huon stated neutrality problem: "[...] because he demanded a flat ten percent kickback for every government contract"

I will fix this. I will add a source and correct the statement asap to reflect a better version. (Mni9791 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

User:Huon stated neutrality problem: "The school couldn't be located and does not exist." - almost all sources agree that Zardari's educational institutions in London could not be located. None claim they don't exist.

Good to know that Huon is nitpicking my edits. He should get a barnstar for stalking me. On the matter itself, I will fix this. I just assumed that if many different news agencies can not find an alleged school, then perhaps it does not exist. Of course, I may be wrong and it is not my job to make inferences. I apologize. (Mni9791 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

A couple years ago this article was a hatchet job, listing every bad thing alleged of Zardari without much other content. I don't want to go back to that. This article is also under constant onslaught by IP editors with a POV, almost always against Zardari (though once in a while there are whitewashers). Now, we need to recognize that he has done bad things, and is alleged to have done others, but it's inappropriate to go into detail over every bad thing without proportionate detail about neutral and positive things. That's why, for instnace, there was not much detail about the school thing - it doesn't need much, just "he claimed he graduated from X" and context (typically required for political positions at a certain level), and most readers are quite capable of drawing conclusions without the article dwelling on it further. Less is more. If you go into a lot of negative detail, then most readers perceive an article written by the opposition, and discount it more than even a typical wikipedia article. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for a long time now. I am not a fan of the President, nor any of my individual political association should reflect on my wiki edits. But to be honest, now this BLP article is leaning towards things which highlight negative aspect of Mr. Zardari. The difference is clearly visible. I recommend that a WP:consensus is made before any further edits which are primarily motivated by a google search of anti zardari articles and stuffing information in. Sarmadhassan (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about him flirting with Palin set off my NPOV alarms. Does it really belong in the lead paragraph? Even as a criticism, it seems trvial and weakens the other points made in the introduction. Park3r (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading this talk page for quite a while. I have also read the page history and compared it to what it was once was a few weeks ago and what it is now. I would like to note that this page had tremendous bias in support of Zardari. This article failed to mention a hint of his corruption in the lead. By failing to mention even the most basic of Zardari's trespasses, the article became pro-Zardari because it removed any content that painted him in a negative light. Wikipedia is not an enterprise for making fan pages that compete with the official website of its biographies. For that reason, this article does not the neutrality policy at all. But at the same time, I am taking the middle ground in this talk page. I believe many more edits should be made into the body of this page before any improvements are done to the lead. This article needs critical corrections such as adding more section and organization. Honestly, its a pain to read this article because its content is so unsourced, missourced, fallacious, and writing is so bad. I see how people are adding more information and correcting the references. Good job to Sarmadhassan, MNI9791, and Huon for undertaking the uncontroversial and information-orientated edits lately.Roberto2004t (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Roberto, I introduced new sections to help boost the page. Its in a "rough draft format" right now. (Mni9791 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

I have literally scoured the web for hours searching for anything about Zardari during the first Bhutto administration besides corruption. There is absolutely nothing else about him. It is as if he married before the term and then got caught up in corruption charges after the end of the term. But i guess thats what a "first husband"'s role would be. After all, he did agree to keep out of politics at the time of the marriage. (Mni9791 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

Locking this page, ratings, and last information cleanup

We need to protect this page from non auto-confirmed users. It is ridiculous and actually hurting the progress of this page's development because I literally daily come here to realize that this page has been vandalized by a user. This page needs to be protected because instead of improving this page, new users attempt to destroy the page. There has been nearly 30 different vandals in 30 days. Can an administrator put this page on hold at least till the clean up is complete? Mni9791 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale." I am pretty sure this is not a start class article anymore. Mni9791 (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"This article has been rated as C-Class on the Wikiproject Pakistan's quality scale." This article is clearly better sourced than nearly all of the articles in the Pakistan genre. Can someone check this for the criteria the criteria for B-Class status??? (Mni9791 (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Topics that still need to be addressed:
1) Judiciary showdown against Nawaz Sharif

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

2) AfPak Trilateral Summit

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

3) Second war with the judiciary--> repeal of Musharraf decrees and constitutional amendments, Zardari removal attempt through reopened corruption trials, attempted removal of the judiciary

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

4) October 2009 aid package

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

5) Pakistan floods

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

6) Presidential limitations and removal of presidential powers

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the above needs to be addressed in the coming two months. my goal is to have the facts revamped by the end of May.(Mni9791 (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

8 Vandalisms in less than 36 hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Mni9791 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)) Protect the page. (Mni9791 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Protect the page permanently

I would like everyone to note that on May 5 (the day protection expired), this page received vandalism from 4 different IP addresses. PROTECT PERMANENTLY. (Mni9791 (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

The correct place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. I don't think the current level of vandalism is sufficient to warrant excluding all new editors from editing the page, but I have no experience with the protecting admins' criteria. Huon (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

[12] [13]

• Can someone upload these two pictures in Wikipedia Commons? I don't know how. Mni9791 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for nothing, everybody. I figured out how to do it. The first image can not be uploaded because some copyright rights are still reserved. the other image can be uploaded into WikiCommons and i just did it. Mni9791 (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Born Where?

In the section "Early life and education" it says in the first sentence:

"Zardari was born on 26 July 1955 in Nawabashah, Sindh of Pakistan."

In the third sentence it says:

"He was born in Karachi..."

His mother must have been in a lot of pain!

4.240.117.207 (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Karachi seems correct; that's what the BBC explicitly says. The Telegtraph says that he was born "the obscure scion of an ambitious family of small landowners from Nawabashah", which probably just means that his parents were from Nawabashah, not that he was born there. Thanks, will make the relevant change. Huon (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, the official govt biography says Zardari was born July 26, 1955 [14] and [15]. That's also the date that's been in the article for ages. Huon recently changed this based on Telegraph saying he was born July 21, 1956. Unfortunately, I can't find other good sources which agree with the latter. FWIW, Pakistan Herald and Britannica-online have July 26, 1955. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Further info. Shortly before the Telegraph article was published (September 2008), this Wiki article had July 21, 1956; the date had been added September 2007 and was unsourced; it was changed to reflect the govt. biography here. It seems to me using the Telegraph article for birthdate might be a circular reference. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing that out. The source we had for Zardari's birthdate was a broken link, so I tried to find another one, and the Telegraph was the first (and only one) I found. I was a little surprised by the discrepancy, but didn't look closely enough to realize what had happened. My mistake. Huon (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asif Ali Zardari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Electronscope44 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to use the GA review cheatsheet to determine if this article is a good article. Electronscope44 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll mark Y comments when I think it has satisfied a criterion, and mark N that does not satisy. Electronscope44 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

• It is reasonably well written. Y

This article is very well-written. However, it has an ugly error in the beginning. "is the 11th and current President of Pakistan since 2008". Remove 'since 2008'.

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Electronscope44 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

This article lists every detail down. However, the sources are written in MLA format instead of the standard wikipedia format that I have seen on most Wikipedia pages.

• It is broad in its coverage. Y
• It follows the neutral point of view policy. Y
• It is stable.

This article has also just underwent major revisions in the lead apparently also. However, there are no apparent edit wars.

The article was protected till August 1, 2011 from IP vandalism which apparently occurs quite often.

• It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. Y

There is not enough pictures at all in the article. It is very poorly illustrated.Electronscope44 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I take this back. I looked into the Wikimedia Commons and there are very few Zardari pictures available. Not only that, but also I have noticed on the talk page that efforts have been already done to attain more pictures. I encourage you to continue looking for more pictures.Y Electronscope44 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overall: Let me go through the remainder list on the cheatsheat first. Electronscope44 (talk)

The article nomination is on hold for three days to make sure the suggested improvements are done. Electronscope44 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

• It has Template:Persondata. Y
• The article does not have short choppy sentences or short choppy paragraphs. Y
• The article has contractions such as don't, won't, haven't, wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't.

However in April, Zardari won a key victory against the judiciary over his corruption trials when Geneva Attorney General Daniel Zappelli expressed that Zardari can't be prosecuted under international laws because of Zardari's presidential immunity.

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Electronscope44 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• It has consistent date styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).Y The article follows the British style. (which also correctly associates with the British heritage of Pakistan.)
• Watch qualifiers at the start of sentences such as However, In regards to...

However, a month later he was again unexpectedly arrested for failing to show up for a hearing on a murder case in Islamabad.
However, the ordinance was up against mounting public pressure and an uncompromising judiciary.
However, Bilawal became Chairman of the PPP because Zardari favored Bilawal to represent Bhutto's legacy in part to avoid division within the party due to his own unpopularity
However, the parliamentary elections were postponed six weeks to February 18 because of the turmoil after the assassination.
However, by the end of April the agreement collapsed as the Pakistani military pursued an unpopular offensive in neighboring Dir province
However in April, Zardari won a key victory against the judiciary over his corruption trials when Geneva Attorney General Daniel Zappelli expressed that Zardari can't be prosecuted under international laws because of Zardari's presidential immunity.

Although I understand that this page has a lot of Howevers, I believe these lines enhance the well-written prose of this page. But I think the article should at least place some efforts into removing the Howevers.

• Any galleries have introductions Y
• Double check wikilinks that they lead to the appropriate spot Y
• Every direct quote is directly cited Y
• Make sure multiple footnotes are listed in order Y
• Make sure the citation style is consistent. N I have explained under the referencing section earlier.
• watch for abbreviations, that they are either explained or eliminated. Especially i.e., etc., no., Inc., Corp. Y
• make sure all title headings are correctly capitalized Y
• The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (GA criteria) Y
• There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria) Y
• Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context. Common words do not need wikilinking. Y
• A word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section. Y
• External links only belong in the External links section. Y
• It is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.Y
• Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. (GA criteria) The AfPak War section pictures to be fixed. Also note that Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections.

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Electronscope44 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• All fair-use images need a fair use rationale. (GA criteria)Y
• Images need succinct captions. (GA criteria)Y
• An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. (GA criteria) Y
• Statements that are likely to be challenged and statistics need inline citations. (GA criteria) Y
• Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. (GA criteria)Y
• Book references preferably should include the publisher,Y city of publicationY and ISBN.N This is preferred but I am not going to stress it because this article even includes Google Books hyperlinks to the pages of the book.
• Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. (GA criteria)Y
• Blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources, unless written by the subject of the article or by an expert on the subject. (GA criteria)Y
• Dead web references should not be removed, unless replaced.Y
• Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks. (GA criteria)Y
• Portal links belong in the "See also" section. Y This article does not have a see also section. But, like the Obama page, this article is so well-linked there is no need for a See Also section. So the portals belong in the External links section which this article does.
• "Further info" links belong at the top of sections. (GA criteria) Y This article could one day become a featured article if it has adds more further info sections.
• Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. (GA criteria)Y
• Lists within prose should be avoided. (GA criteria) Y
• En dashes are used for ranges, unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes are used for punctuation.Y
• Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. If possible, use a conversion template, eg. {{convert|5|mi|km|0}}.Y
• Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes.Y
• Sentences should not start with a numeral. The sentence should be recast or the number should be spelled out.Y
• Only the first word in a section heading needs a capital letter (except in proper nouns).Y
• Short sections and paragraphs are discouraged. (GA criteria) Y Generally, alright. I understand this article has a lot of different aspects of Zardari to handle. But improve the Afpak War section and Reduction of Presidential powers section.

Done. Mni9791 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Electronscope44 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ampersands should not be used (except when in a name, eg., Marks & Spencer) Y
• "Past few years" has a different meaning to "last few years". Y
• "within" has a different meaning to "in". Y
• Initials in people's names need full-stops. Y
• Hyphens shouldn't be placed after -ly words, eg. widely-used word (except if the ly- word could also describe the noun, e.g. friendly-looking man) Y
• Most other two-word adjectives need hyphens. Y
• "century" doesn't have a capital.Y
• "While" should only be used when emphasizing that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link.Y
• Using "with" as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose, e.g. "the town has ten councillors, with one being the district mayor" → "the town has ten councillors; one is the district mayor" Y
• Beginning a sentence with "there", when "there" doesn't stand for anything, leads to wordy prose, e.g. There are ten houses in the village → The village has ten houses. The same applies to "it". Y
• The words "current", "recent" & "to date" should be avoided as they become outdated. (GA criteria) Y The use of "current" is allowed in the first sentence because of the Obama page precedent. Y
• Avoid using "not", eg. "songs previously not heard" → "songs previously unheard"Y
• Avoid contractions, such as can’t, he's or they're.Y
• Avoid Weasel Words, such as "it is believed that", "is widely regarded as", "some have claimed". (GA criteria)Y
• Avoid Peacock Terms, such as "beautiful", "important" and "obvious". (GA criteria)Y
• Avoid informal words, such as "carry out", "pub", "though", "tremendous" and "bigger". Y
• Avoid phrases with redundant words, such as "is located in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007".Y
• Avoid using the words "circa", "utilize", "whilst", "upon", "commence", "the majority of", "lack", "whereas", "generate", "due to the fact that" and "prior to".Y

Child actor: 1969 Salgirah movie

Could we get a reliable secondary source for Zardari's acting career? I couldn't find anything beyond blogs, YouTube video commentary and Wikipedia mirrors. Huon (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Aah, yes. Apparently, that is a very little known yet interesting fact about Zardari. If you understand Urdu and take a look at this clip, it shows a small scene of Zardari as a child actor in a 1969 movie. True, there are not many reliable sources which discuss Zardari's early childhood or his links to cinema; that's why this information is trivial in the first place. Mar4d (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I also looked for sources. I could not find a single reliable source. We can not use Youtube clips or blogs to cite information, especially on a biography of a living person who is running for political office. This article is a reliable and effective because it uses highly authenticated reliable sources. Having an uncited statement such as this weakens the article and the hard work that has been put into it. You admit that this is unknown triva: "is a very little known yet interesting fact about Zardari". This article is also undergoing a FA nominee and the unsourced statement will hurt the process. Reformation32 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Mar4d wanted to add that factoid to the article without a reliable source - neither do I. Huon (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if I jumped into an earlier discussion. My discussion was concerning today's edit- [16].Reformation32 (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

that was not just a blog-type clip on youtube. it is actually a video recording of one of the top/most-viewed satellite news channel in Pakistan called "Dunya News".i think a news airing on traditional news channel should suffice to be a reliable source.the host of the news talk show "hasb-e-haal" is a also a renowned journalist and this is also enough for citation purpose.further,disregarding a news record because it was in the form of a clip on youtube just isnt good practice as videos can also be a source of authentication and the most common place for them is youtube!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.191.54 (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Videos can easily be faked - and the most common place for that is YouTube too. For that reason YouTube videos are generally not considered a reliable source - definitely not if the uploader is not affiliated with the producer. Do you know when that news airing was originally broadcast? Does the broadcaster perchance have an online archive? Huon (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi,its me again.i see your point. 1-first of all let me say that i watch that program quite often and i can relate those 3 persons with theirs voices.i myself bear witness to the fact that,that clip was indeed real not fake. 2-original broadcast air date was '8th oct. 2009'. 3-yes,the broadcaster does have an online archive(see the links given below). the TV channel's official website:http://dunyanews.tv after going to their website,click on youtube button which will take you to their official youtube channel,then type "hasb e haal 08-10-2009" within their YT channel's search box.now you have that news show divided into clips,just click on the last part(i.e. part-5) and there you have it! for your convenience here are some direct links also: direct link to dunya news' off. YT channel:http://www.youtube.com/dunyanews1 direct link to the original news clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fMvuZ08cH0&feature=plcp regards, Adnan Tariq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.181.60 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Although it is nice to see that the article has GA status, I only have one issue: it delves straight into the 'controversy' stuff right from the second paragraph. I think it would be better if most of this info is moved into the bottom first sections rather than right at the beginning of the article which is supposed to only give an overview and sort of introduce the person. Shouldn't the start of the article preferably just talk about his current status and role rather than going into the history? This would also sort-a tone down the POV, no matter how controversial Zardari is as a public figure. Mar4d (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the personal life section is usually at the top; Mar4d (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the personal life section is usually at the top; for Barack Obama, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Naoto Kan and Hu Jintao it's relatively far down near the end of their articles. I'd say it's a matter of significance; Zardari is not primarily known for his personal life, and his political career should be covered first. Huon (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Valid point; but regarding the long lead paragraphs, I still think much of it should be moved into the sections rather than at the top of the article. Mar4d (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bilawal Zardari Bhutto

This page had an intense argument a while ago about Zardari and his Shia. Another similar argument has emerged in the Bilawal Bhutto Zardari page. [17] Reformation32 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Asif Zardari is not a Shia but an Anti Shia

Please remove the religion "Shia Islam" from the info box because his policies are apparent thta he is a an anti Shia and Saudi Wahabi Agent. Just yesterday he has has postponed the three death sentences to banned Sipahe Sahaba Activist who killed a Shia doctor some years back. As well In his existence the in Presidency Quetta has become Karbala for Hazara Shia and same for Parachinar Gilgit Baltistan and Karachi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.73.214 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources state he's a Shia, that's what Wikipedia will report. His policies are not necessarily related to personal religious beliefs. Huon (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Windowdoom, 17 July 2011

Windowdoom (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kalamkaar

This is to request that the sub heading in the section with respect to personal life titled 'Surrey Palace' is factually incorrect. While the government of Pakistan has laid claim to Surrey Palace multiple times, no such claim has been made by Asif Ali Zardari. Please note that the references in question are reports about the allegations in varying newspapers and no direct or indirect acceptance has been made neither can be found in these referred articles.

Thus I would request the following para to be rectified according to facts;

He initially denied for eight years that he owned the property and no-one paid the bills for the work on the unoccupied mansion.[45][263] Creditors forced a liquidation sale in 2004 and the Pakistani government claimed proceeds because the home was bought with money through corruption.[45] However, he stepped in to claim that he actually was the beneficial owner.[8] As of November 2008[update], the proceeds were in a liquidator bank account while a civil case continues.[45]

As follows;

He has so far denied that he owned the property and that he paid the bills for the work on the unoccupied mansion.[45][263] Creditors forced a liquidation sale in 2004 and the Pakistani government claimed proceeds because the home was bought with money through corruption.[45] As of November 2008[update], the proceeds were in a liquidator bank account while a civil case continues.[45]

The Guardian explicitly says that Zardari's lawyers claimed him to be the beneficial owner, in two different articles. The Guardian is a reliable source, and I see no reason to disregard it here. The distinction between Zardari making the claim and his lawyers making the claim on his behalf seems rather irrelevant. Huon (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures that can be used for this page

• 
  May 2009: Add caption here
• 
  July 2009: Add caption here
• 
  October 2009: Add caption here
• June 2011: Add caption here
  June 2011: Add caption here
• July 2011: Add caption here
  July 2011: Add caption here

Reformation32 (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Zardari Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zardari Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Given the frequent vandalism this article faced in the past, and still persistently faces by random IPs as can be seen in the edit history log, why is this article not semi-protected? When you leave a GA article, that too on a controversial figure, open to editing, you are inviting the article to be ruined. Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It was recently semiprotected and is at the moment (just not tagged) till 30 January 2012. Check out [18]. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AfPak War

I would have thought that this was too controversial a term to use as a section heading? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I have changed the sub-heading to War in Afghanistan. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Name in Urdu and Sindhi

The text looks same for both. Is there any difference? Urdu: آصف علی زرداری and Sindhi: آصف علي زرداري. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Sindhi has two additional underlines. But I don't read or speak either and cannot tell how significant that is. Huon (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Huon. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The underlines are vowels which are understood by the language speakers without being in place from the grammar. They are only used when being written for some one who can read the script but is not good with the grammar or spellings. The formal writing does not contain these. Both names are the same - should be written as (Urdu, Sindhi: Name) with the Urdu version. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

Please i am edit his Death Date

Malikliaquat (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Since Zardari is alive and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I don't see how that would be possible. Huon (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Examine source

• Zardari Set to Assume Pakistan's Presidency

This source has been used multiple times in the article and should be examined for WP:UNDUE. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

At first glance it looks like a reliable secondary source which provides an in-depth history of Zardari before his presidency. The WSJ should be rather neutral in Pakistani affairs. Could you specify what use of this source might run afoul of WP:UNDUE? Huon (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Proper place of the following text

The following text was added by BrightStarSky under the section "Wealth", sub-section "Surrey estate", which i felt was not the right place for the addition:

Pakistan's Supreme Court on 12 July 2012 set 25 July as the deadline for the Prime Minister to approach the Swiss authoriies to reopen the graft cases against the President, Asif Ali Zardari. Failure to take action in the matter, would invite appropriate action under the Constitution, the Court warned.

Can a better location be suggested as i cannot find any? Perhaps a new section? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the text is pretty relevant in the "wealth" section since the "graft cases" are about heaps of money (gained by questionable methods) stored in Swiss bank accounts. Perhaps the sentence can be better clarified, but the section in which it has been inserted seems fine. Mar4d (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Wealth"yes, but "Surrey estate" seems wrong. A new subsection of "wealth", maybe "2012 judicial investigation"? On the other hand, this issue has cost Pakistan a Prime Minister, if I'm not mistaken, so maybe a new subsection of the "Presidency" could also do if we consider this a political issue. Huon (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It was in the sub-section Surrey estate. Also, this is a legal and government matter, and there is a whole section of Mr Zardari's legal problems on this page, so i thought it was better to first discuss it here. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

References