Talk:Zalmay Khalilzad

Needs Reworking
This article needs to be reworked in its entirety, preferably by an expert. The comment about Wohlstetter seems to imply the exact opposite of what Wohlstetter stood for (at least according to the article on Wohlstetter imself).

Khalilzad does not have Cabinet status -- see whitehouse.gov for the list of officials at this level. To say he does is a serious error.Mjameswilkinson 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

According to whitehouse.gov you are right, but according to Presidency of George W. Bush UN ambassador counts, United States Ambassador to the United Nations says that although he must be confirmed by the Senate, he's got the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary...as well as being the representative of the United States in all plenary meetings of the General Assembly where a superior officer of the United States (e.g. the U.S. Secretary of State or the President of the United States) is not present (a rare situation). Questioning81 02:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The section concerning his writing on US leadership also has questionable importance. Either it should be expanded, or deleted all together. It probably serves better as a fact elsewhere in the article, rather than a separate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.189.57 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

“

Bias, word choice, etc.
Recent voluminous additions by 67.115.133.240 appear to be at times not NPOV, uncited/uncitable, perhaps copied verbatim from elsewhere, and unencyclopedic (viz., "Condolezzie Rice", "the prez"). Subsequent clean-up by User:Everyking does not remove the bulk of this troubled mass. I'd previously removed most, left by similar IP 67.115.132.155 and would prefer to revert to my last revision, but am unsure how to do this, especially in light of Everyking's contributions since. Advice requested. In mean time POV template has been placed. --Derek 18:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The edits were problematic but seemed to be adding content so I didn't revert. But if you want to revert it, don't let the fact that I did subsequent clean-up stop you. Everyking 18:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. --Derek 21:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

-- "RAND is a right-wing think-tank, created just after World War II in connection with high rankinn officers from the armed forces and now cloesely linked to the neoconservatives (Donald Rumsfeld for instance)." -How objective is this? Walter Mondale, for example, is also one of the trustees. Might want to take a look. [update: A quick look at the entry's general sources reinforces suspicions.] --

Why is it important to point out that he is the highest-ranking native Afghan and Muslim in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush? This doesn't really make any difference in my opinion. ---WSL---

Yes it is important. Some people may be surprised that there are any Muslims are in the Bush administration. On another topic, I think that some of the section on his recent activity in Iraq is very pov, particularly the statement about him being truly hated in Iraq. Academic Challenger 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question: has Khalilzad ever identified himself as a Muslim. If yes, then there must at least be a a source for that. Having an Afghan sounding name isn't good enough for identifying someone a Muslim. WestendRaider 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Context
Is the following line currently in the article appropriate? Does it not run the risk of being taken out of context--since it indeed, is the only sentence from the referenced study quoted?:
 * Khalilzad co-authored the RAND study, "The United States and a Rising China", which included the line, "Of course, US armed forces must be prepared to defeat China militarily

--198.59.190.201 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted incorrect citation
I got curious and found a copy of "The United States and a Rising China" and found that the citation on the article page is incorrect. The original is:
 * Of course, US armed forces must be prepared to defeat China militarily if it threatens vital U.S. interests.

Whereas on the page it was written as:
 * Of course, US armed forces must be prepared to defeat China militarily.

I think that the citation was incorrect. The article is available at. Julius.kusuma 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Sunni Muslim
Many reports in Iraq say that Khalilzad has asked Sunni insurgents to kill and behead Shia citizens. How does The United States Senates agreed to put this terrorist as US ambassador to UN?

Hmm...funny that everyone seems to love him at the UN and no one seems to be bringing up terrorist lnks. Makes me question how reliable are the "many reports in Iraq" you mentioned.

In the section References there is a reference to the following article,

July 17, 2007 2:40 PM

Exploiting the Confessional Turning the tide against Iran.

Alexander Benard

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjNjNWNiZDhiZDM5MzU5YTk2MjVkOGM2NjUyZmJlYmQ=

In this article is no reference whatsoever to Zalmay Khalilzad, so what is the relevance of this article for the Zalmay Khalilzad entry?

I cleared up the link description, but i do agree that the relevance may be questionable, although the link shows that the son is following his dad's lead. Questioning81 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Succession Tables
Why the diplomatic posts both under his picture (like Thomas R. Pickering) and at the bottom (like Ryan Crocker). Should be on the bottom for consistency. Mikebar 18:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

name
Though Zalmay Khalilzad is a Pashtun, his last name is Persian and not Pashto. "Khalilzad" means "of (the family) Khalil". The Pashto equivalent would be "Khalilzay". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.143.168 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Khalilzad is a Pashto name, it means descendant (kinship and descent) of Khalil, it may also be used as Khalilzada or Khalilzai (son of Khalil), depends on how one wants to pronounce it in their region. His first name "Zalmay" is also Pashto and it originted as meaning a baby lamb.--203.175.65.183 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The ending "-zad" is Persian. The related Pashto equivalent is "-zay". The discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Khalilzad's first language is Persian and not Pashto. According to KabulPress, there is no public record of Khalilzad ever speaking in coherent Paxtu, language of the Paxtuns. According to The Guardian, his mother tongue is Dari, which differs little from Farsi.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.136.107 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"The American who could be President of Afghanistan"
79.78.20.68 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Tough he claim himself as Pashtun his ethnicity is heavily disputed, mostly by Pashtuns self. It seems the guy only claim of beeing Pashtun descand since from Pashtun tribes some families were for the last 200 years the traditional rulers of the country that is known today as Afghanistan. The suffix zad in his name show a Non-Pashtun origine plus he can not even speak a word of Pashtu language while his Persian knowledge compared to Pashtu is much better also it is very broken like the word of a child. It is thought by most people he is of Pashai descand and the claim of beeing a Pashtun is only for having an easier way to the parliament of Afghanistan. He does not know anything about Pashtuns, not even their culture or customs. There is not even any kind of evidences of a Pashtun origine of his family or ancestral line. Let´s see here: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1856/81/

[...]But despite Zalmay Khalilzad’s defective knowledge and understanding of the cultural and social complexities of Afghanistan and Iraq the media (and politicians in Washington) continue to market his '“Afghan birth”, that he “is well versed in negotiating tribal and ethnic divisions”', and that he speaks Afghanistan’s “two main languages—Pashto and Dari” (Andrew North, BBC News, February 2006). Khalilzad’s published writings dealing with Afghanistan and South Asia are framed by explicit American Cold War ideology and are mostly based on anecdotal data and information. 'His published work is uninformed by the cultural, ethnographic, and historical realities of the country he claims as the place of his birth'.

Zalmay Khalilzad is on record for gleefully acknowledging the destruction of the state of Afghanistan as a “worthwhile” price for American “strategic” interests: “The gains we made as a result of the struggle in Afghanistan, even with the problems we have had since, I think from the American strategic point of view, it was very much a worthwhile investment” (“CNN Presents: ‘Cold War’” TV broadcast, March 7, 1999).

'Khalilzad has cleverly manipulated his ethnic and national background by portraying himself to his employer as a member of the numerically dominant Paxtun group in Afghanistan. In practice he has no meaningful competence in the language and culture of Paxtuns or, for that matter, any other ethnic group in that country. He speaks rudimentary Farsi' but it is not known whether he can read and write it. There is no public record of Khalilzad ever speaking in coherent Paxtu, language of the Paxtuns. '''Anyone with adequate personal and/or scholarly ethnographic familiarity with Afghanistan would know that no Paxtun would have a (self-selected or assigned by one’s family) name that ends with the suffix “zad”. “Zad” is a Persian word that means nativity or descent and it is used as a suffix in last names among non-Paxtun Kabuli Afghans. Its Paxtu equivalent is “zai”''' (e. g. achakzai, ahmadzai, ‘abd al-rahimzai, noorzai, etc.). Some knowledgeable Afghans have suggested that Mr. Khalizad’s parents were members of the peripatetic jat or qawal ethnic groups.[...]--84.59.205.77 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan
There is now a significant amount of reporting on this subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/world/asia/19diplo.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/diplos-heart-afghanistan-ceo-khalilzad-not/ http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/23/world/fg-meddle23?pg=1

Reporting in major newspapers that a person is taking actions to hold a high ranking office in a national government qualifies as significant event that should be recorded in Wikipedia. ~J23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by J23 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
It would appear that this article is being used to include unproven information regarding alleged involvement with Gulf Keystone Petroleum - see recent revisions. Can the article be semi-protected, at least until this can be proven either true or false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.83.157.139 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.examiner.com/a-689871~New_U_S__Ambassador_to_U_N__Starts_Job.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Zalmay Khalilzad with George W. Bush in 2004.jpg

Special Representative for Afghanistan position has not been abolished.
I ask the IP claiming the position of "Special Representative for Afghanistan" (formal title U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconcilation) has been abolished without any evidence to please stop removing sourced edits showing that it is not. It is disruptive when you do this without presenting any evidence to the contrary about it yourself and don't source your own claim.

I added that Thomas West is the new Special Representative to Afghanistan with the CNN source. It contains the US government's own statements saying he is so: ''Secretary of State Tony Blinken said in a statement. "Thomas West, who previously served as the Deputy Special Representative, will be the Special Representative for Afghanistan."''

While we can dispute many thing, disputing the government about who's serving in what post shouldn't be done without evidence. And I haven't found a single source claiming the position of "Special Representative for Afghanistan" has been abolished. The editor reverting me is free to present his sources here if he has any. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)