Talk:Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] Notability

Bilawal Bhutto is a notable person, he is the elder son of Benzair Bhutto, and a heir to Bhutto political dynasty, his name is frequently mentioned in the Pakistani media [1] [2] as a future player in Pakistani politics.--JamesDS (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Has he done anything outside of being Ms. Bhutto's son to make him independently notable? Keilana 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's at the least an assertion of some sort of notability. I suggest we let this play for a week or so and so if anyone can build up the article.DGG (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The media are calling him a possible contender in the upcoming Pakistamni elections, and he's expected to take "center stage". --JamesDS (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that he isn't notable for being related to a famous person, but for being related to 3+ famous people. I'd say give it a few days for now, but if anyone takes it to AfD we would get a more definitive answer. Joshdboz (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: It looks like he might just become a bit more notable tomorrow [3] Joshdboz (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Time magazine is reporting that Bilawal Zardari "will likely be named as her political heir and the new party leader on Sunday." Joshdboz (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep See Above 66.82.9.74 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not notable; redirect

I boldly redirected the article to Bhutto family; User:WWGB reverted; that's fine, it's the bold-revert-discuss pattern. Here I am to discuss. However I was fairly offended by the edit summary "rvv" -- I didn't vandalize anything; I redirected the name where it should go, because the subject is not notable. He may be notable in the future, even the near future, but that's irrelevant.

Right now his only notability is that he's in a famous family and there's speculation that he'll be called upon to take the reins of the Pakistan People's Party. Speculation isn't good enough, and WP is not a newspaper. Right now this title should be redirected to Bhutto family, and perhaps a few words said there about the subject would be OK. --Trovatore (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As the editors above have indicated, I think we should at least wait and see what comes out of the statement due later today before further action on redirection. WWGB (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we should not. If the statement that comes out later indicates that he has indeed been tapped for the leadership of the PPP, no harm done; the content is still in the history and is trivial to restore. For now the subject is not notable and should be redirected. And you ought to apologize to me for the "rvv" edit summary. --Trovatore (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do regret the rvv, and acknowledge that your edit was good faith. WWGB (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"Bilawal Zardari" gest 6480 hits on Google search and 70 on Google news including widespread reporting that he will play some major role in PPP politics. I think that, mixed with his very famous family, is notability enough for now. But if after today you still think this should be a redirect, feel free to bring to AfD to gather more opinions. Joshdboz (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just appointed chairman PPP. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshdboz (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess that makes him "notable". WWGB (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
One could say so. Joshdboz (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I would agree. Off topic though, it's pathetic. You don't turn over the hope for secular democracy in the world's sixth largest country to a teenager; I don't care who his mommy is, or even how damn smart he might be (which I have no idea). I hope the PPP reconsiders. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutto or Zardari?

Shouldn't it be Bilawal Zardari instead of Bilawal Bhutto? Lordricha (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He is known as Bilawal Zardari [5]. The title of the article has been changed to reflect that. WWGB (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the title should be Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garg (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just been watching the PPP news conference on TV, and it's been announced that henceforth he'll be known as Bilawal Bhutto, but hang on for proper confirmation before moving the article. -- Arwel (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Asif Zardari said that his full name will now be Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. 59.93.12.201 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, he changed he's name to bhutto now --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"From now on my son's name will be Bilawal Bhutto Zardari"[6] Tanzanite (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ok by me, but you moved the page cut and paste, which messes up the GFDL, you should move the page not cut and paste it.--Alf melmac 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, the pages involved are now moved so as to keep their respective histories, excepting the edit Tanzanite made to this page before moving the old named talk page over here, sorry about that Tanzanite. I have also seen to all the redirects and double redirects. For further information on moving pages so as to abide by the GFDL please see Help:Moving a page.--Alf melmac 16:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Chairman

CNN is reporting that Bilawal will not be chair officially until he graduates, until then an interim chair will be in place... 70.55.88.113 (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


He will be studying for 3 years on oxford, bring that in, cause their is no info on that in the wiki. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Course read

Does anybody know what subject he studies at Oxford? According to THE TIMES it's history, whereas german media claims that he studies law. --80.141.80.41 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen history several times but I don't have a source right now. Joshdboz (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He is definitely studying history only. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.151.162 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free image

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7165052.stm this image seems nice but is under copyright, anyone got a FREE picture? --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a free picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BBZ.png but it's very little.. Thats the only problem. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/30/pakistan.politics/art.zardari.afp.gi.jpg

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071229/images/29son.jpg

Which one should it be, it can probably be put in the category: Fair use after I've checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanonkas (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please talk further about the picture, about any deleting it, so on. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This image is likely to be deleted under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images. I know how annoying this is as I've had experience with uploading images in the past. It sounds very difficult and annoying but the only way we can get an acceptable image of Bilawal Bhutto is if someone takes a picture of him and uploads it on Wikipedia. The other alternative is to search Flickr.com for an image of him that allows for a Creative Commons 2.0 licence. I've already checked and there aren't any such images right now. Thus, we may have to wait until either an image with a CC-licence is released, or if someone uploads an image they've taken themselves. Ekantik talk 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is another option too! if someone could ask Bilawal Bhutto Zardari himself on facebook to give his picture for using in this article. --SMS Talk 13:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook reaction

Editor can use this TIME.com article to data-mine information about Bilawal's reaction to Benazir's assassination on his FaceBook page. Ekantik talk 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


You've all been had.


http://consolecity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84298 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.74.17 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christ Church

<Oxford pedantry> The BBC incorrectly titles Christ Church as "Christ Church college" and someone followed their suit, linking the three words to the article about the place. This is incorrect, it is either to be called "Christ Church" or "The House" - in The Oxford University Calendar (published by Oxford University Press - with editorial control at the University Offices in Wellington Square) gives it's title as "Christ Church" and states "THIS foundation, traditionally known as 'The House',...". Likewise one does not call his mother's alma mater, Lady Margaret Hall, "Lady Margaret Hall College". </Oxford pedantry>--Alf melmac 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ Church is a constituent college of University of Oxford. Since this article is FOR GENERAL AUDIENCES AND NOT JUST OXBRDIGE ALUMNI, it should state that Oxford is a university, and that Christ Church is a college from Oxford University. 70.55.86.232 (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Those facts are now reflected there, though Oxford isn't a university, it's a city and local government district. We should use correct titling, this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, we should bother to write to be both readable by the general public and be correct.--Alf melmac 10:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Islam

How do we know that he is a Shia Muslim. Can someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.93.92 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi you all Bilawal Bhutto Zadari is a Shi'a Muslim i have edit and did it so,if any body needs reference to it i have give it too and i am also giving it here:Shi'a Islam[1] . well i have seen that some is repeatedly removing it and is trying to hide this fact and is always removing Shi'a Islam which is actually Bilawal's religion! i would request the wikipedia authorities to take action against the person doing so on other Bhutto family articles too because all of the Family is Shi'a Muslim! thanks Paki90 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The info box heading states Religion. Bilawal's religion is Islam; Shi'a is a denomination, not a religion. Please indicate why it is important to make such a distinction beyond stating Islam. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A comment made last month on the talk page of the infobox about the usefulness of the religion field stated "George Bush, Tony Blair and current Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd are all people who have made their religious beliefs very public and well-known. For these people, the addition of religion is appropriate. For someone where it is not widely known or publicised, then it's not appropriate." I have no personal view but suggest those interested parties review that discussion here.--Alf melmac 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Well his father is shia and his mother was sunnie. I think she raised his as a sunnie cuz i used to go to the same mosque as him in dubai and he always prayed in the sunnie way.

[edit] Update

An editor keeps inserting that Bilawal is a Shi'ite, accompanied by a "reference" [7]. I have personally checked this source and it says NOTHING about Bilawal. I have therefore removed the claim as it is unsubstantiated. WWGB (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consult Biographies of living people about adding religion. It is against WP policy to add information just because you think it's the truth. (Drumz0rz (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Suspicious website?

The Wikipedia article lists the Bilawal Bhutto website at www.bilawalbhutto.pk/. I have some reservations about the authenticity of this website, especially as the home page is a direct lift from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It does not look professional. Also, I believe the inclusion of a Google adverstisement is a major sign of its unauthenticity. Funds would come directly from the PPP (maybe) and definitely not from ads. Also, in a recent press conference, he said that he wants the media to respect his privacy.[8] The creation of a website by Bilawal seems very unlikely. I think it should be removed. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The only reference to it that I could find is a Jane's article which credits it for an image. I think we should wait to see if this is ever confirmed as official (or if he buys the domain ; ). Joshdboz (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Mail article

Okay, an anonymous user has been pretty adamant that this article should be included. After having been deleted from the article a number of times by myself and others, User:WWGB has made an attempt to "include it without sensationalism". I still personally think that this has no place in this article, especially its constant wording that it is written by one Glen Owen, which frankly doesn't seem important at all. I also have problems with the article itself: its main source seems to be Facebook, and it's speculative of attitudes towards his student life. --AdamSommerton (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have absolutely no problem if the Daily Mail material was removed. I was just trying to bring some respite to the reverts involving Adam and the anon editor. If other interested editors express opinions here, it may resolve the issue one way or another. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Remove - the article is excessively trivial tabloid material with no allegations that would disgrace any 19-year old in Britain. It's not so much damaging as silly, and not notable - a good deal less so, for instance, than Kevin Rudd's strip club visit, which has been taken out of his article though he is a sitting Prime Minister (well actually now I've checked, it is now back in, but it was excised during the Oz election)Jaguarjaguar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the piece is by Glen "Anything that suggests that extremism is taking hold. It doesn't matter what form it takes, just as long as it gives any indication of extremism" Owen, who has already outraged various members of the student body (amongst others) I don't think it even deserves a mention. There is not one ounce of proof he provides that Bilawal acutally knows that said girls are 'self-considered lesbians', regardless that some accounts on Facebook, which may or not actually relate to real human beings, say that they are. I applaud the re-write though, it adequately makes it clear that of the words that were said, his assumed intake of alcohol with respect to the accepted religious caveats is questionable at the very least and in all likelyhood a total load of bunk. If it is kept in, leave Mr Glen Owen's name in - the top google link that appeared for me is the one I quoted which adequately shows his methodology in creating such 'journalism'.163.1.147.29 (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the man's hypocrisy in trying to elicit Muslim extremist views, but coming across as a member of the Taleban himself in his judgement of Bilawal...I think the whole thing should be removed without further ado and will do it myself in a bit if no objections come up Jaguarjaguar (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute?

The editor who has questioned this article's neutrality seems to me to be pretty partisan - the same one who has repeatedly tried to emphasise the Mail article, for instance. Since he isn't even coming into the open to state exactly why the article is not neutral (though I imagine it has to do with the exclusion of the dubious material he added) the tag seems redundant. Waiting on the decision of other editors though Jaguarjaguar (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

149.254.192.195 certainly seems to believe that their versions are right and others with reliably sourced information are wrong as here, for example The current version of the article appears pretty neutral from POV pushers at the moment, though it won't be if we allow unreliable sources and/or unverifiable information to get in.--Alf melmac 09:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Further to my comment above, we have 16 sources, most of which are from highly reliable and respected publications, for four small paragraphs, the only aspects I see that 149.254.192.195 is contesting is:
A: the inclusion of the Daily Mail article (dealt with in the above section) and no comment, viable or otherwise, has been made by the editor(s) wishing that information there.
B: the inclusion of the word Shi'a in the religion box, which is hardly a major neutrality issue and is being dealt with in the "Shia Islam" section at the top of this page, that info is relying on a source that has been questioned in the "Suspicious website?" section and current agreement is not to use unless it is proven reliable.
I am therefore going to remove the neutrality tag as of now. Editors who do not agree with this issue should, at the very least, make a good argument in the relevant sections on this talk page before restoring the tag.--Alf melmac 10:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is as NPOV as it can get in its current form. Agree completely for the time being. Joshdboz (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] black belt

whats his dan rank.68.160.241.122 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)