Talk:Pervez Musharraf/Archive 2

Monumental events in Pakistani History - the People's movement for change and no mention of the price they have paid to win back their Judiciary and Constitution robbed by Musharraf
In Musharraf's wikipage - there is no mention of the RIOTS and VIOLENCE and DEATHS of the hundreds of civilians on May 12, March 16 - where there were no police or security forces present to quell the violence. Very biased indeed. 24.23.194.4 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) You can Google any mention of May 12, Pakistan, Lawyers killed, Judiciary and you'll get plenty of fact-filled news reports...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6649089.stm 24.23.194.4 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"She recently retired from the UNO agency in ISB."

What are UNO and ISB???

United Nations Organization agency in Islamabad Fahadzkhan (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 24.90.160.7 (talk)Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Musharraf was not responsible for any of the May 12 Events. We can put that in Iftikhar's page if you want though... —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to Archive?
This talk page is getting rather long. I was wondering if someone would archive it? I would but I don't know how. Thanks! Bjfcool (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Approval Ratings
Must mention his increasing unpopularity in the country due to his handling of the judicial crisis and the Red Mosque crisis.

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-28769820070801

How can Approval Ratings portion of the Musharraf article possibly miss IRI polls ?? Is it because they put his popularity at 22 percent?? http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C10%5C12%5Cstory_12-10-2007_pg1_3

“The percentage of voters saying Musharraf should resign from the army has increased to 70 percent and his favourability rating dropped to 22 percent,”

The IRI polls are the MOST extensive and detailed of their kind conducted in Pakistan. To not include them is dishonesty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saludada (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

24.90.160.7 (talk)The truth is that you just want to add them because they fit your political views. The truth is that this is a survey only given to a 1,000 people and we all know those 1,000 people don't represent 170 million Pakistanis. —Preceding comment was added at 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kargil 1999 war with India
Don't forget to mention that Musharraf was responsible for Pakistani involvement in Kashmir during 1999, specifically the Northern Light Infantry Division.

Mystery within Pakistan
I do not understand this, why Nawaz Shareef is blamed to have taken the decision to retreat from Kargil, while Pervaiz Musharaf was the army chief, he immediately obeyed the orders of his boss to retreat from a very high advantage stretegic location, and it is widespread belief in Pakistan that the decision to forfeit the high posts was not in Pakistans stretegic interests.

Why he refused to step down when he was dismissed by the same boss, while that was not a matter of very high interest for Pakistan. Was it more than Kargil? (by signing I may not get banned at wikipedia but might get my name enroled in the list of Missing Pakistanis)Mkashifafzal 11:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the withdrawal was blamed on the USA applying pressure upon the prime minister who was Nawaz Sharif, who, rather than admit this, blamed Musharraf.I doubt that Mkashifazfal is now on the list of missing Pakistanis and if he is, it will not be on the basis of this contribution. Workersdreadnought 13:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

UnitedPakistan (talk)Wikipedia is NOT a place to vent your political frustrations or ask such questions. I will humour you though by informing you that Musharraf did NOT intiate the coup. When he landed the coup was already carried out and command was handed over to Musharraf. —Preceding comment was added at 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is written by Musharraf's son
So much pro Musharraf !

If a CFO says he is unaware of accounting frauds, his ass will be kicked.

Musharraf, being self-assumed president and army chief says he was unaware of nuclear proiliferation by AQ, and this arcticle gives him an easy pass on that.

Similarly, on Kargil war, he was solely responsible. But clean sheet even there too

I would like to know how you know he was solely responsible. Please do provide some citation or reference other than an opinion. I personally thought this article was a little anti-Musharrah as it constantly referred to Nawaz Sharif as the 'democratic' or 'constitutional' PM, even though mentioning it once is enough.Apermal 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No Apermal, it was not enough to mention once that Nawaz Shariff was the democratic PM because it cannot be stressed enough that Musharraf is nothing but an usurper and dictator, and all his cooperation in the war on terror and his enlightened moderation will never change that fact. He may declare himself president but he will remain a dictator. As for his role in Kargil, do you seriously think that the Armed Forces led by him will declassify any information regarding a botched up operation which would only serve to indict them. Maybe the armies in the west are answerable to their governments and their people, but not in Pakistan. Western dominated media never ceases to surprise me with its hypocrisy - on the one hand they depict themselves as good guys in bringing down a dictator (Saddam), hanging him for killing his own people and providing democracy to the people in Iraq and on the other hand another dictator (Musharraf) is doing the same (killing his own people in Baluchistan and Waziristan) and all we get is a rosy picture of him with any adverse information toned down just because he is useful in a war on terror. Round up, this article does have a pro Musharraf POV. Maybe we might get a more fair POV when is no more use in the war on terror like we do with Saddam now that he has been dispensed.

Nawaz Sharif is a convicted terrorist after he attempted to take down the aircraft on which Musharraf was travelling, so he cannot be prime minister even if elected by the thuggery and bribery which so often passes for "democracy" in Pakistan Workersdreadnought 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is neutral
Coming back to the issue of this being POV or neutral, wonder what those who are accusing it of being POV really want as neutrality? An extremist point of view perhaps or Musharraf according to the POV of Islamist parties? powerblue


 * What I'd like as neutrality is sources. I'm not even near being an "Islamist extremist" (save an Islamist even), so don't look at me that way. SushiGeek 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We want the truth? His political allies include the MQM, which is arguable the biggest terrorist organization in Pakistan. Not mention his economic "reforms" have only benefited feudal lords. And I my self have always had extreme hate for the Tirbal Areas in Pakistan(why the hell do they have autonomy when provinces don't?), but whats happening in Waziristan is Genocide. Had this act been commited by China on Tibet, you would be singing a different tune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.198.35 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Wikipedia Fails Its Own Standards
I am amazed that you have not informed your readers that this article is not neutral anymore.

I have personally included at least fifteen times the details of Mushrraf making comments that women rape victims in Pakistan made allegations for the money they could get from doing so. He then subsequently denied making these malleegations and the Globe has since put up a transcript of this interview which proves him to have been lying. This and other infrmation such as Musharraf's alliance with the religious extremist Muttahida Alliance in Pakistans Parliament and his dismissal of Supreme Court Justice Taqi Usmani have all been continually been deleted and removed by Islamabad and its lackeys. It does your website a great disservice to not at leat mention that the neutrality of this article is severely disputed. (163.1.231.83 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I have added his regreattable actions on women rape victims in Pakistan and will make sure that they are included in this page.
 * Siddiqui 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

From User Dargay: Musharraf's government has made strident efforts to improve the lot of women in Pakistan. The Washington Post is simply interested in generating some controversy for which they ambushed Musharraf into making some comments about a particular rape case in Pakistan. I think we are all well aware of the desire of the Western press to attack high-profile targets and criticize. I do not think too much weight should be given to some comments made by Musharraf to the Washington Post.

Neutrality challenged
The neutrality of this article has been challenged manya time and it is incumbent on wikipedia to restore confidence in their srvice by making this clear. on a related note, why is everyone trying to cover the fact that this is essentially an undemocratic government whose head has now given false statements about retiring from office more than once.

This is exactly correct. Its amazing that when it comes to pakistan, we cant simply state the amazing facts and let them speak for themselves. Fact is, the facts would be seriously harmful to the image certain pakistanis want to portray. I'd suggest they go back home and work to change those facts, rather than changing the wikipedia article on those facts.--71.251.57.160 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. If someone wants to include a well cited criticism section about his govt., show his his comparitive dispopularity or gradual decrease of national confidence in his rule, I don't think it would be inappropriate. omerlivesOmerlives 12:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with POV
The edit before my own contained the following sentences "According to the constitution of Pakistan 1973, any person overthrowing civilian government without constitutional authority commits high treason for which he or she will be punished with life imprisonment or death penalty. Musharraf has faced none of the above penalties!" in the "Coup d'etat and election" sub heading.

These sentences are blatantly POV. Whoever wrote this needs to keep their biases in check in factual parts of the article. If they have specific grievances against Musharraf, they may create a sub heading with a title like "Criticisms of Musharraf's rule/assumption of power" and detail them there. "Musharraf has faced none of the above penalties!" is not appropriate in an encyclopaedia.

More POV problems & references
Role in Kargil Conflict From April to June, 1999, Pakistan and India were involved in the Kargil Conflict in which Musharraf was Pakistan's Army chief. This conflict resulted in 'eventual mistrust between civil and military leaderships and this division ultimately saw the demise' of democratic system in Pakistan. Pakistan Army masterminded the Kargil War 'without any intimation' to the civilian government, causing a loss of over 5,000 Pakistani Army officers and soldiers. The heavy loss of life and the reactions to the same caused the Army to overthrow the elected government, 'all in order to protect the Generals from public humiliation.'

This is disgusting! POV and needs citations! I can't even read more off this article!

Ozzykhan 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks 58.65.182.163 for removing parts of that section Ozzykhan 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say that democracy should be restored in the country and once done it should formulate such Laws / regulations in the country which prevent military people to take over because it has only lead us to discontinuation of policies, irrespective of whatever shape and form they were. Above all military is, only, there to secure the borders of the country and not to rule it.

Use of the word un-Islamic.
I think that you will have to defend that word very carefully. I urge you to modify the text instead to reflect that Musharraf's perceived liberalism is viewed as un-Islamic by some in Pakistan and then to cite that statement. Without that, it cannot remain in the article. Hornplease 10:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for first reverting and then starting a discussion on the talk page. I think I should also revert it back and then reply, if this is the way to go? The section heading need to change and it should say "Anti-islamic according to Pakistanies". Then we could find references from News paper articles. I know there will be lot of references. People could see those article if they do not know what is meant from Anit-Islamic. The section need to rewriten too as it is not unislamic or anti-islamic to give son/daughter higher education but many other things that he had been trying to do. However, all this could be done only if you let it stay that way for sometime without stating a useless edit-war. --- ابراهيم 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahimfaisal (talk • contribs).

Musharraf is the biggest terrorist. I dont know what his problem is life is. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indians-pakistanis-involved-in-mumbai-blasts/22876-3.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnopnIP (talk • contribs).


 * Yes IBrahim that is the right way to go.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Musharraf's views considered AntiIslamic" - removed
I've removed these extremely POV couple of paragraphs from the article. They are poorly sourced and potentially libelous, in my opinion; see Biographies of living persons, which is the policy I've removed them according to. If anyone would like to give the text a NPOV and find it some reliable sources, that'd be fine, but in its current state it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Picaroon9288 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Transparency International sources
Recently there has been some edits by users - who incidentally have only done editing in mainly Musharraf related articles - that has put a spin on the TI score for Pakistan sometimes removing original links. This so called "clarification" itself has been misread, misquoted and as a leading Pakistani newspaper editorialised, it was a "a pathetic clarification". The editorial clearly analyses even the clarification and notes that the % increase between the first and second term of Musharraf's regime has been lower than the predecessors, but that the first term corruption index for the dictator was quite higher. But in the end, Sharif's highest of 34%, Bhutto's 48% and Musharraf's 67% clearly indicate that the latter was perceived to be more corrupt. I just wanted to clarify this for the sake of the editors who may have misunderstood the stats. For details, read Daily Times editorial:here. Idleguy 04:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From the one who edited corruption section of article

First of all I would request my Indian friends to not presume that their Indian media presents them a balanced picture of affairs in Pakistan. I am a frequent follower of Indian media and have to say that when it is Pakistan, Indian media portrays an extremely distorted picture of Pakistan. And sometimes even blatant lies without any accountability.

I had following objections on the article.

1) From article,,, "In fact, according to a survey by Transparency International, Musharraf's regime is now perceived by many Pakistanis to be more corrupt than the previous democratic governments led by Ms. Bhutto and Sharif."

In the said survey, TI had asked respondents to compare governments in several ways.

One comparison was Musharraf government 99-02 (martial law) vs Musharraf govt 02-06 (elected government). It is results of THIS survey where 67.31% people perceived elected government of 02-06 as more corrupt than martial law government of 99-02 period.

Remember this is Musharraf vs Musharraf comparison. And realize that if you ask people about a Saint with just two options whether he was more corrupt in period x or more corrupt in period y, then at least 50% people would end up choosing one period of that Saint more corrupt than other (67.31 + 32.69 = 100, no third option). Now on comparison of Musharraf vs Bhutto or Musharraf vs Sharif, the things were drastically different. Only 3.17% Pakistanis perceived Musharraf govt more corrupt when compared to Bhutto or Sharif govt. And that is true. We Pakistanis know that.

http://www.transparency.org.pk/documents/National%20Corruption%20Perception%20Survey%202006.pdf

In a Nationwide Transparency International survey consisting of 4000 people ( methodology detail in above linked file ) the question was asked about corruption in Musharraf's regime!!

Musharraf's government b/w 99 - 02 || 32.69% Musharraf's government b/w 02 - 06 || 67.31%

More than double an increase in corruption perception since the last civillian government ( 34.00 %

2) From article,,, "Critics of his administration point to the fact that Pakistan, which was placed at 79 in the ranking 5 years back[18] is now ranked at 142[19] putting them at one of the most corrupt countries in the world."

a) Musharraf did not take office 5 years back. He took office 7 years back. In his first two years, when he had absolute executive powers, Pakistan’s ranking in corruption had improved. What is the reason of to not include those two years? (except distortion)

b) During these years number of countries in survey have become significantly large (from 91 countries in 2001 to 163 countries in 2006), which naturally leads countries below mean to shift further below mean. This component of shift because of larger size does not imply the country has more corrupt.

3) From article,,, “During his trip to the US to promote his book, he is accused by many in Pakistan to have costed the government exchequer up to $1 million, for which he was criticised by the opposition parties in Pakistan.”

Now this is another distortion "During his trip to the US to promote his book".

Like all heads of governments of all countries, he also goes to US to attend UN General Assembly session. During his last such visit he also participated in book promotion events organized by publisher of his book. It is extremely distortive to report that whole $1 million on that tour was for his book only and UNGA session did not cost anything.

Matter of fact, he mostly travels on regular commercial flights which makes his travels cheaper than travels of previous heads of governments who used to book chartered planes. What is the reason of hiding this fact? (except distortion)

4) From article,,, "Pakistan is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world" Is the purpose of this article to objectively inform biography of a person, or to subjectively denigrate a country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyaseen (talk • contribs)


 * The last line was added by someone who decided to join this editing issue without fully reading it. I have removed the needless statement: "Pakistan is now...". Apart from that, you should try to read the sources and not snippets. Daily Times is a Pakistani publication, neither an Indian media nor a "politically biased media" as you believe otherwise. Regardless of all the permutations and combinations in the statistics, the end result remains that Musharraf's peak in the corruption index is more than the previous 2 PM's highest in the ranking. By giving reasons like "number of countries in survey have become significantly large", as the possible answers for his remarkedly high corruption perception, you are merely indulging in WP:OR, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. the 1 million issue was raised by opposition parties, not me. If you have an issue with it then u should blame them. Again you seem to be resorting to original research to explain how his travel costs are broken down. Not acceptable in Wikipedia. And, please use your WP:SIGNATURE in talk pages. tx Idleguy 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding why only the 2001 year was taken, is that Transparency International doesn't list Pakistan in 2000's survey and 1999 was mainly under Shariff's rule (Musharraf only took power late that year). Therefore it would not be a reflection of his rule. But interestingly, Pakistan was ranked 87 in 1999. Idleguy 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rank versus Score


 * The question of "rank" misses the point entirely. Rank measures Pakistan's percieved corruption relative to all other countries. In fact its score has remained largely the same. The highest score of 2.7 was in 1998. The highest score (2.6) under Musharraf was in 2001. The score for 2007 is 2.4 and it has been as low as 2.1 under Musharraf. Even these numbers have to be put in context.


 * I think it only fair that anyone quoting TI read its own instructions on how to interpret the index.
 * "which matters more, a country’s rank or its score?"


 * "While ranking countries enables TI to build an index, a country’s score is a much more important indication of the perceived level of corruption in a country. A country's rank can change simply because new countries enter the index or others drop out."


 * "Can country scores in the 2007 CPI be compared to those in past CPIs?"


 * "The index primarily provides a snapshot of the views of business people and country analysts for the current or recent years, with less of a focus on year-to-year trends. If comparisons with previous years are made, they should only be based on a country's score, not its rank, as outlined above."


 * "Year-to-year changes in a country's score can either result from a changed perception of a country's performance or from a change in the CPI’s sample and methodology. The only reliable way to compare a country’s score over time is to go back to individual survey sources, each of which can reflect a change in assessment."


 * In my opinion, the statistics are wrongly interpreted, misleading, and should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.171.228 (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Presidential succession box?
Why remove the presidential succession box when the rest of the article still states that Musharraf is the president of Pakistan? I'm reverting its removal (again). Further removals of the box without comment or explanation will be assumed to be vandalism.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there is a Presidential Box there already!--71.126.185.253 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, there's one in the infobox. They should probably both be in the same place though, that is the presidential one and the chiefs of army staff one. Do you think it would be better to remove the succession information from the infobox, or put the chiefs of army staff information at the top with the infobox? Or neither way?  Big Nate 37 (T) 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf family Background Punjabi
Is it true that Musharraf s family background is Punjabi. Delhi and the area of Shahajahanabad has had a thriving Punjabi Muslim Community. The community in India continues to be prosperous and prominent. Members of this community include doctors, teachers, engineers and advocates, however most  are  into business. Seee the link from The Hindu - Metro Plus Delhi Death no leveller in Capital cemetery. From all accounts of where Musharraf s family lived in Delhi there is reason to believe that Musharraf s background is from this community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.8.126 (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

"(M)ilitary (D)ictators?
I wonder about two things in the first paragraph of this article. First, is "Military Dictator" a political title, and if not, shouldn't the capital letters be removed? Personally I believe it is a political term (like "tyrant" or "populist"), not a title of office.

Secondly, the sentence that discusses "fourth in the series of Military Dictators who have ruled Pakistan for 31 years in its 59 year history" makes it sound like dictators have ruled in Pakistan consecutively for the past 31 years. Wouldn't "fourth in a non-consecutive series of military dictators..." be better, or perhaps even remove the sentence altogether due to POV issues (like why call him a dictator in the opening paragraph when the entries for Hosni Mubarak, Bashar al-Asad or Robert Mugabe lack such a politically-loaded moniker?)

Unregistered user so I won't change things myself. Thank you. 210.20.86.85 03:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A country which is under military rule doesn't necessarily mean that it is a military dictatorship. In order for a country to be classed as a 'military dictatorship' then first Martial Law must be declared. This will automatically make it a dictatorship. Musharraf DID NOT declare martial law when he took power in 1999 and as of today he still hasn't. The term 'military government' or 'military administration' would be more appropriate (or something like that).

Fact-check, please
from OTRS:

> u say musharraf is 4th prez and tarar is 11th prez...musharaf came > after tarar !!! there is an error!!

Fact check, if you would be so kind. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

4th general to serve as president, but the 12th president. 75.35.72.51 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Who would follow?
If Musharraf were to be assassinated, who would be in charge of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? 75.35.72.51 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan, currently Muhammad Mian Soomro. 75.35.72.51 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess out of 160 million people there are numerous who are better than the idiot running the country now. He wont be assasinated he will be removed by his own army or the people and as usual will settle in California with his son.

Under this man PIA cant fly its planes to Europe, the poor cant afford food but he is now worth over $300 million. He is spending all the wealth of Pak on the military buying weapons which the military uses only upon citizens of Pakistan.

trueblood 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, well said. The point is well taken. He is really an idiot and also a very cunning dictatorial ruler. His party funds the ISI (Pakistan's secret service).

ShivSenaPramukh 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)ShivSenaPramukh

I guess what I said a few months back about this idiot getting tossed out is gettting closer, he should be gone within 60 days as the Army Generals will replace him just to save their rears. For the first time in Pakistan the people hate the army and the muhajirs.

trueblood 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Trueblood, please don't abuse anyone, especially in the biographies of living persons. Idleguy 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For the first time in Pakistan the people hate the army and the muhajirs. Are you kidding me? The people in Pakistan have always hated the muhajirs and this is not the first time they have hated the army; they hated it plenty during Zia's period!! I'm not sure how old you are so don't know if you were old enough back then to have seen what I saw. Anyhow, we seem to forget that he didn't remove Nawaz Sharif by himself! A new chief of Army Staff had already been selected by the PM and Musharraf was not even in the country at the time, instead the plane he was on wasn't even being allowed to land. The Core Commanders had vowed to never allow the politicians to use the Armed Forces into their game of keeping power. I believe the Army was justified to protect itself from these dirty politicians. Also, India is just upset that it lost so many soldiers during the Kargil war. As a General, Musharraf saw the oppertunity to finally take Kashmir back, since most of Indian Army was at a disadvantage being at a lower elevated point than Pakistan and he went for it. Most people forget that there is always someone firing, from both sides of the border, at each other; it sometimes escelates into battles and one day probably will become a full blown war; it's inevitable.

Bullshit, the people of Pakistan did hate the army after the 1971 debacle and not the Zia period but unforunately Z. A. Bhutto betrayed the people by making the army a sacrosanct white elephant constitutionally. Further, there is no such thing as Corps Commanders vowing never to let the Armed Forces being used in any game. I dont know which country you live in dude but the Armed Forces in Pakistan have always wilfully played in the game of political power. Surprising you should mention Kargil, which by the way was not an opportunity to regain Kashmir, it was nothing short of a blundersome operation launced and planned by an inept leadership that turned into a fiasco despite having many potentials for huge gains none of which the elite leadership in the Armed Forces were adept at exploiting. As for the Corps Commanders, Corps Commander Lahore was on his way to congradulate the new Nawaz appointed chief when he learned of the coup and turned back from Gujranwala. Corps Commander Karachi did not have the the army chiefs flag fly on Musharrafs staff car untill he was sure of the coup in Islamabad which was a full 20 min after Musharaff had landed because he didnt want to run into trouble with the newly appointed army chief. GOC Muree was in Rawalpindi to congradulate the new chief. By the way, the new army chief appointed by Nawaz Shariff was also a Lt. Gen in the same army who was serving as DGI and had previously commanded two Corps. Was he so freakin oblivious to what the Armed Forces wanted. Round up, as everyone knows in Pakistan, the coup was the handiwork of just a few hardcore individuals placed at key positions like Corps Commander Rawalpindi, the Brigade Commander of the infamous 111 Brigade which has been garrisoned in Rawalpindi solely to facilitate Coups and last but not least DG internal security in ISI, the then servile Maj. Gen. Jamshed Gulzar Kiani all of whom went on to reap the fruits of their heroic feats in overthrowing their own government and finally went on to fall out with Musharraf over the scraps they were getting for their loyalty. Oh and by the way, thank God most of the people of Pakistan dont think like you and go read some impartial history before you ask for a full blown war with India cuz you have managed to lose the last three. For a Pakistani, you surprise me with your blind faith in our army which has achieved nothing over the last five decades but conquering its own government numerous times. Oh and by the way, war is just not as inevitable as you think cuz u know people in Pakistan are not all as oblivious and illusioned as you are.

Meo Rajput???
Musharraf is from a Syed family. His father's name was Syed Musharrafuddin...I dont know where this whole Rajput thing is coming from.

In Pakistan anyone can call themselves syed yes thats true many people claim that title to get affectionated eyes of people for them!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.151.185 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

trueblood 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lock down Pervez Musharraf article
Tons of vandalism has been conducted on the article as a whole67.176.117.44 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done my best to remove the insults and readded sourced statements, requested sources for ones that are without. No need to block for now. Idleguy 06:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that the supporters of Musharraff wont sign their names while giving glowing acolades for this man. there is no need to lock anything. Just have the people who want to make up things up this man sign their names. For example saying that Musharaff is a baluchi while in fact he is from India.

trueblood 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Musharrafs a baluchi would be the lie of the century.

Because people who oppose Musharraf are apt to assassinate us, as they have tried to assassinate him. Streona 00:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased Language
I only had a chance to read the section, "Relations with India". It was thought provoking and rousing, but written with unbelievably biased language. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed or a documentary. The language must be totally objective. I am not an expert on Pakistani/Indian relations, so I cannot contest the veracity of the information in the section. But I can say that the manner in which it was written is entirely slanted. The writer/editor's job is not to convince the reader of a point, but, rather, to say the facts without using contaminating words and/or emphasis (see weasel words and peacock words) that will sway the reader to a particular opinion. This type of language is just counterproductive anyway. It gives those with the opposing viewpoint fodder with which to criticize your point... I tried to fix up the language in the section a bit (although I didn't change the information, per my earlier point about not being an expert on the subject). Still, I only had so much time to work with it. Perhaps someone should take a solid stab at editing this material. Also, there may be problems with the rest of the article...

~^v^~ ask123 ~^v^~ 05:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please specify the specific instances of such weasel or POV statements that aren't backed by a source. Much of the sources comes from the FA on Kargil War which details the nitty gritty aspects on the kashmir conflict and thereafter. Thanks. Idleguy 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here isn't the sources or the information. I do not deny the facts that are presented. The problem is (rather, "was") the manner in which the information was presented. The style of the sentences invited the reader to espouse a particular slant on the topic (rather than plainly--and perhaps boringly--stating the facts). In any event, it seems that my changes are still there (although some stuff was added after by another user). As long as things are as they are now, there isn't much problem. You must realize that the sentence style of the earlier version was unfortunately partisan/slanted in one way or another. Here are some examples:


 * The earlier version stated: "Although Pakistan claimed that these were mujahideen, it was apparent that they were Pakistani regular soldiers backing up separatists on the mountain top." This may be true (I am not an expert and am not disputing it), but to say "it was apparent" is slippery language. Thus, I changed the language to be less slippery and more objective. The current version still has my language.


 * Another example: "Some reports suggest that Musharraf retreated after huge pressure from the former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from the American President Bill Clinton, who feared the conflict could turn into a nuclear catastrophe." Again, I am not disputing this (and, in fact, I'm quite sure this is true), but the phrase "some reports suggest" is also slippery. Again, please see peacock words for examples of phrases, like this one, that are meant to lead the reader to think that there is authority behind a sentence when actually there is not. This type of "peacocking" is especially not necessary when the information is in fact true.


 * Here's a third example: "As the Kargil incident came just after the Lahore Peace Summit earlier that year, Musharraf was viewed with mistrust in India." "Was viewed" by whom? This type of claim must be attributed, no matter how true it is. Again please see weasel words for examples of phrases, like this one, that are meant to cause the reader to think that there is broad consensus on an opinion or fact when, actually, it is just the reader's lone (or a minority) opinion. In this case, it may be true that most people held this opinion; but, still, the sentence used weasel words with no attribution whatsoever. Why? There is no reason to do this if the information is true. It just knocks away the authors' collective credibility. It's basically a cop out.


 * My final example: adding words like "aggressive" to the phrase, "aggressively increase their nuclear capabilities" is pointless. The meaning is the same without the word. Increasing one's nuclear capabilities is an aggressive move in and of itself. You need not say "aggressively," as it is understood. The author only added the word to infuse his sentence with some punch or exclamation. Encylopedia articles don't need punch, they need objectivity.


 * My other changes to this section were largely grammatical.


 * This type of slippery language is unfortunate since Pakistani/Indian relations is an important element of the Musharraf page, and the facts (which I believe are correct--I am not an expert here) must be stated without being tainted by weasel and peacock words. I hope this clarifies things. ask123 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for the headsup since it is quite different from the last time I edited this section to remove such weasel words and the "apparently" was the only one I could notice myself. Will work on this and try to neutralise those words as far as possible. Thanks. Idleguy 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Kargil Concflict section is too sparse / Corruption section has weasel words
The section on the Kargil Conflict is too sparse. Even though it is not the main article on the conflict, it has too little information to be understandable by people unfamiliar with the subject matter. Some color on the events that happened would fix this problem. I tried to clean up the few sentences that are there but I am not an expert on the topic and, frankly, am not dedicated to cleaning up this article. Perhaps someone who is committed to the Musharraf page might do this...

Also, the section Corruption is filled with weasel words. There's nothing neutral about the language there. That's unfortunate since I'd bet my money that there's tons of hard, legitimate, credible evidence for corruption in the Musharraf administration... Cheers. ask123 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

First line
Is his Pakistan Army Number really so important that it should be the first thing mentioned? And should General really be written in bold as if it was part of his name? And should it not be removed from the top of the infobox as well? I think so. --Bagande 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has objected, I will go ahead and make the changes.--Bagande 20:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I object and reject your claim. Every sigle detail is provided for a petty actor or singer; why can't we have this vital information for this Made in India American feces aka Musharraf.(This is both scatological and racist)


 * It might be beneficial to include it somewhere, but it should not be the very first thing noted.--Bagande 10:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is so much anti Musharraf propoganda here its stupid. None of it is sourced, cos its pretty much all lies. The man is not perfect, but this article is brazen in its non truths and reflects poorly on Wiki's staff for allowing such unsourced allegations to stand.


 * Accusations and remarks about the mans family are both irrelevant and of poor taste. That Bilal is an immigrant to the US, is it revelant to the article?


 * Please list the points of the article you find biased, and they will be discussed and changed if appropriate. That is how Wiki articles evolve. Some articles on Wikipedia are definitely biased, but that needs to be pointed out so the changes can be made. I had to do just that to a section of this article a couple of months ago, so you're not alone... ask123 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I have no idea what this person is complaining about, most if not all the information is correct in this article. The issue concerning the son of this man is surely important as it shows the connections of Musharaff to the United States

trueblood 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The mans son is a grown man who is independent of his father. In either case, please source that information. Also, regards his daughter, please source her career, or remove reference to it.

This article is full of loaded language, and denies facts such as supreme court approval of the illegal nature of his removal by the Sharif govt. These are facts known to any serious student of Pakistani affairs, perhaps not some yahoo sitting in Colorado, who is unfamiliar with the ground realities in Pakistan.

Again, if credible SOURCES are provided, I will drop by protest at this gross bias. If not, you will I trust act in an honorable manner and remove all slanderous accusations.

Finally, references to the family "fortune". By all accounts they have no fortune, clear implications there of embezzlement, which not even his enemies accuse him of. That is nothing but slander and it is both morally wrong and unsourced.

I trust these issues will be dealt with.

Infact I suggest you adopt the world famous and award winning Encyclopædia Britannica as the standard. Read that professional article on Musharraf, and compare it to the DIY nature of Wiki's article. There is a reason EB is cited as definitive. It is created by 4000 professionals, experts in the fields they write on. It shows in the quality of there work.


 * Please sign your posts with four tildes (a tilde = ~). You must do this if you wish to contribute on any Wikipedia talk page. And please use a colon before your comments if you wish to respond to another user's commernts. This indents your comment below the other user's and helps readers to understand the flow of the conversation. I have fixed this above, but please do it yourself next time. Thanks! ask123 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed "male stripper" line. That is the idiocy I complain about!

86.3.142.147 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Place of Birth
People keep removing British India and the flag under place of Birth. Musharraf was born in what was British India, whether or not you regard the annexation of the subcontinent by the British as valid or not. Personally I think the rule of the British to have been a foreign occupation. However irrespective of the legality or illegality of the British Raj - there was a political entity known as British India. Also check out the place of Birth for Nehru - a former prime minister of India.

Pahari Sahib 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, yes! It should be kept as it was when he was born. Or could it be changed to something like "British India (now Pakistan)"? I'm not familiar with any style policy on this. (As an anecdote, my father was born in Quetta which, at the time, was in British India. He gets into all sorts of problems with British bureaucracy if he doesn't write Pakistan as country of birth!) ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ  «»  10:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request to have this article semi-protected
I've been seeing a lot of minor vandalistic edits frequently the past few days and it takes a lot of time to correct these errors and keep reverting to the correct version. Therefore I'm planning to put up an official request to semi-protect this page atleast for sometime. Any opinion guys? --Idleguy 03:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. Given the nature of events in Pakistan over the past few months, I guess this wave of vandalism was expected. Max - You were saying? 10:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any luck with the RFPP? - Max - You were saying? 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me, i almost forgot. :| Now it's listed here. Hope we get a positive response. --Idleguy 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is now. Idleguy 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, good! Atleast anon IP vandals would be curbed until August 13. Thanks for your efforts! - Max - You were saying? 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

May need to be protected again... Theres some big changes and deletions going on. BURNyA 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Views by BURNyA
Ahmed... This is an encyclopedia article. And a talk page for an encyclopedia, where the article is discussed. Not a place to ask Musharaf questions or to debate whether or not he's a dictator. BURNyA 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

New request to have this article semi-protected
There have been huge chunks of this article removed since it went off of semi-protection. I think it needs to go back. Anyone else? BURNyA 15:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased, pov and antiamerican and just plain bad
I clicked the ""US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to 'the Stone Age'"" found in the "other articles" section right down at the bottom. That website (and article) is awful, in my opinion it looks like one prolific crazy 15-25 year old nutjob wrote the whole site. I strongly think the link should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.38.77 (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Not Syed Pervez Musharraf
Syed is his family name and even in his presidential election nomination to Pakistan Election commission he has written his name as Syed Pervez Musharraf, why than in this article it is prohibited to write Syed with his name??

Khalid Mahmood —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah thats why his grand father name first word is qazi? you all are blind.

Pervez Musharaff
I think that having a civilian picture is clearly wrong, he is a army general so putting a civilian picture is incorrect. ! President of Pakistan is not supposed to have a political party so put correct items

trueblood 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone is editing this page by inserting swear words in Hindi/Urdu for titles. Is there a way to lock this down? Puck42 23:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? Picaroon (t) 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about here


 * Pahari Sahib, 01:42, 27 October 2007 (GMT)


 * Oh, I thought he meant extant on the page right now. Anyways, looking at the recent history, this page is not receiving quality edits from any anons. I've semiprotected it for a week. Picaroon (t) 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and Style Correction
Original:

Musharraf mother had taken her Master degree from Lakhnow University. She recently taken retirement from UNO agency in ISB.

Correction:

Musharraf's mother received her Master's degree from Lakhnow University. She recently retired from the UNO agency in ISB.

Comment:

Passage would be clearer if somebody expanded the initialisms UNO and ISB

144.226.230.36 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead
The lead should be expanded to at least three paragraphs, in an article this long. ALTON  .ıl  00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * President should be listed first (as it's the most senior post) & Military Ruler (ie. Dictator) can't be included as Wikipedia sees such terms as PoV. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your "PoV" argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever. Dude, I have no opinion on Gen. Musharraf per se, I'm neither pro-this or anti-that. But you need to realize that the fellow was never "elected" by any democratic process. He seized power in a coup no less, appointed himself to a fancy extra-constitutional title called "Chief Executive" which is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the constitution of Pakistan, and then appointed himself to office of "President of Pakistan". During the last 8 years, the guy has dissolved national and provincial legislatures twice, and "put in abeyance" the constitution of that country an equal number of times. Okay, imposing "emergency" IS constitutional, but he did that (if you bothered reading the Privisional Constitutional Order that he decreed on November 3rd) in his capacity as ARMY CHIEF and not as "President". Listen, kid. One, the fellow is from the military, there is no doubt about that, I hope? And two, he seized power in 1999 not through due process but in an overnight bloodless coup. What else qualifies somebody to be called "military ruler" if not the past facts and events I just recounted? And your excuse that "Wikipedia sees such terms as PoV" is just nonsense. Go look up Zia's article. The lead there mentions the phrase "military dictatorship". Okay, one article's obviously not enough for you. Go look up Franco's article. Same deal, "dictator" mentioned again. Why do you have this soft corner for Musharraf then, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Love 'em or hat 'em (I personally hate him), the title President goes first & the term Military Ruler, needs constitutional verification. Get those verifications and you can put anything you want - Dude. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- If you're gonna add Military Ruler? be consistant about it - include it on the TopInfobox (assuming you've got a constitutional source to back it), Dude. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the ordering of the various "titles", so that's not an issue. Nor is it about being pro- or anti- his regime. This is not about whether Musharraf's military regime is good or bad for Pakistan and its people -- perhaps he's a human rights usurping monster or perhaps he's a messiah of democracy, that's not the issue here (in fact that would be a "matter of opinion" and something where "PoV" might creep in). But instead, this is about whether Musharraf's regime is a military one in the first place! Are we in consensus till this point? I sure hope so. Now how to determine if his regime is a military one? Isn't that obvious? But you want constitutional verification? But that's obviously impossible! The 1973 constitution (the one in force in Pakistan at present) obviously has NO MENTION of any process by which an ARMY CHIEF may abrogate and dismiss the legislatures, executive and the judiciary (which is what he's done twice now, once in 1999 and then again few weeks back) and the constitution certainly contains NO provision by which an ARMY CHIEF can "put in abeyance" the constitution itself! I mean, this shouldn't be hard to understand -- how can a democratic constitution contain provisions for "military rule"??? Again, I humbly ask you to PLEASE go and read the PCO (provisional constitutional order) that Musharraf decreed on November 3. He clearly did it in his capacity as "army chief" and not head of state. THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Heck, Musharraf HIMSELF acknowledged that what he did was unconstitutional -- read the BBC news report here . "Have I done anything constitutionally illegal? Yes, I did it on November 3rd." And these are his own words! Now "PoV" would be whether his unconstitutional actions are for the good or bad of Pakistan and its people. Remember, Abe Lincoln also abrogated basic human rights such as habeas corpus and did other "unconstitutional" things at the onset of the civil war in 1863. But most experts' opinion is that what he did was good and for the benefit of the American union and its people. So, as I said, whether Mush's unconstitutional actions are good or bad, that is a matter of "PoV", but whether he did anything unconstitutional in the first place, the answer is unquestionably and unarguably YES, and so by his own admission! And then there's the precedents and other articles I've mentioned. I really recommend we stick to the "military dictatorship" characterization for his rule as well, as is the case with the various other such similar articles I have already pointed out. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. I have more ammunition :-) Also read the second-last paragraph of the BBC news report I gave above. "The US administration has made repeated calls for the emergency to be lifted and for Gen Musharraf to return the country to civilian rule." Okay, the key phrase is "return the country to civilian rule". Hmm, if the country is not under "civilian rule" as of now, then what is it under? This really shouldn't be so difficult, military rule, of course! And again, at the risk of repeating myself, "constitutional verification" of "military rule" is simply not possible, because the constitution obviously contains no provision or any mention of "military rule" in the first place. And neither should it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think these extensive arguments put forward by this unknown user are simply too opinionated to be taken as fact. Regardless of how Musharraf attained the position, he is still President of Pakistan; the legitimacy of his rise to power or his policies while in office are of little matter to that fact. --G2bambino (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. "Original research". 1. Musharraf was the army chief in 1999, not an elected official. Fact or opinion (or original research)? Fact. 2. He dismissed the then-elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif in an overnight coup. Fact or opinion (or original research)? Fact. 3. Again, this is not about whether Sharif was a corrupt, incompetent monster who "deserved" to be dismissed in the first place. But the question is whether the army can or should take such an action. No, as per Pakistan's constitution, it cannot. Fact or opinion (or original research)? Fact. 4. Heck, I can keep rolling out facts ... why don't you point out what in my "extensive arguments" above smelled like "opinionated original research" to you??? Obviously, it's just the case that your knowledge on the matter is unsatisfactory, and I can probably point you to relevant news reports and/or other references. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All those things you've brought up? are covered in the article. These overly emotional 'self-rightious' anon editors are 'boring' -See Cuba and its related pages, where anon editor 'El Jigue' was banned-. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They are covered later down in the article, yes. But the issue is whether the lead must mention that he is a military dictator (or his regime one of military rule) or not. And hey, I'd probably prefer being an "overly emotional self-righteous anon editor" than a dumb dimwit Wikipedia-registered weasel who's afraid to call a spade a spade, lest it be viewed as "opinionated". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, unless the anon editor can prove there's such a position as Military Ruler of Pakistan, it should not be included. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- A similiar dispute occassionally flares up at Augusto Pinochet, concerning the term Dictator. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, at the risk of repeating myself for third time, there is no position as military dictator of Pakistan (least of all mentioned in its constitution) in the first place. Military rule is always unconstitutional (if the constitution itself is worth being a democratic one, that is, I'm not talking about un-democratic constitutions such as the Peoples' Republic of China's that explicitly mentions dictatorship and actually goes on to argue that is the best form of government for the Chinese people). This is such an obvious and simple thing, I don't even know how to prove it. But still, military dictatorships do exist, do they not. I really wish what more do I (or Musharraf :-) needs to do to prove to you folks that the regime there is indeed a military one. I still can't believe there is actually an argument here. It's almost like being asked to prove that sugar is sweet. As far as my being an "anon user" is concerned, I don't spend enough time on this website to consider registering, but I probably will, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who disputed military rule?
 * PS- sign your posts as instructed at the head of the window. --G2bambino (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting something anon editor, your opinon (and wanting to include Military Ruler) is in the minority. The majority of editors prefer the 'term' in question, not be included. Respect that majority, or risk being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- I personally don't mind using 'Dictator, Military Ruler, etc' But the current Wiki guideline frowns on them as weasel words. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I haven't spent too much time on this website, but in that case, probably it's time Wikipedia considered modifying its guidelines and rules regarding such issues. Doesn't Wikipedia (and its authors and administrators) have any sense of responsibility towards its readers as to the quality of its articles? Not calling a military rule a military rule (and thereby hiding the truth) is active disservice towards future readers. But I'm confused still. I've been looking at several articles of former (or dead) dictators of various countries for the past few hours, and almost all of them do contain the words or phrase military rule or military government or military junta or military dictatorship (or a variation thereof) in the lead of the article. Cases in point are Zia, Pinochet, Franco, etc. But curiously, for some unknown reason, Wikipedia articles of living (or those whose regimes still control their countries such as Musharraf himself) dictators seem to be averse/afraid of using those phrases in the lead. Anyway, I'm tired of flaming now, so you guys can continue maintaining this article any which way as you wish :-) Sorry about all the controversy. Cheerio. 203.200.95.130 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, wait! Y'know, I was just wiki-ing a bit more around to know what qualifies for a government to be formally called a military dictatorship on Wikipedia, and I thought, what better source than the corresponding article on Wikipedia itself! You two should probably read the 5th paragraph of section 1 and 3rd bullet of section 2.1 of that article. Pervez Musharraf's regime, on more than occasion, has been listed as a form of a current military dictatorship, on the Wikipedia article about military dictatorships no less! So now, it's no longer about opinions or povs, I think it's a matter of making Wikipedia internally consistent! Either rip out all content and mention of Musharraf and his regime from that article, or please consider mentioning that phrase (or a variation thereof) in the lead of this article. Being internally inconsistent speaks poorly about the quality of a website that claims to be an "online encyclopedia". Thank you. 203.200.95.130 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Augusto Pinochet seems OK with the term Military Ruler, guess you can re-add it. Hopefully, someday you can put former in front of it (aswell as infront of President & Army Chief). GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks! :-) And this, just when I had almost given up! *goes and reads (parts of) the Pinochet talk page* Wow, if ever there was an un-ending discussion, then that was it! :-) I don't really know how Wikipedia archives such important previous discussions (and experiences that came out of them and lessons learnt etc) or formulates the "policy guidelines" articles, but I really recommend that you guys also create some kind of "WP:Dictator" kind of page (probably think of a better name). I think we can avoid a lot of emotional outbursts, flaming, edit-warring, and unnecessary/unconstructive/time-consuming debates on the talk pages if only we had some completely objective, cold-hearted, and concrete "criteria" by which regimes could be classified as military regimes/dictatorships. For example: 1. How did the regime come into being? Was it through some "due process" mentioned in the constitution of that country, or through an army battalion suddenly bursting into the offices of the civilian branches of government and arresting/dismissing elected representative? 2. How does the regime function, and how much "say" does the military have in the functioning of that country and its government? Are military generals appointed to posts such as chairmen/managing directors of government-owned companies? Are military officers "appointed" to posts that would/should normally have been held by civilians "elected" to that office? 3. Does the "leader" of the government derive his power from his control of the military and such institutions? Did he do so in the past (when he initially "came to power")? etc etc ... 203.200.95.130 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor name and link correction needed
In the "Foreign policy" section, in the part regarding Government financing of Al Qaeda, General Mahmoud Ahmed is mentioned. I think that should read "Mahmoud Ahmad" (not "Ahmed"). They are two different people and the link goes to the wrong one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.104.83 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf to quit army post?
The BBC is reporting that Gen. Musharraf will quit his army post on Thursday. Simfan34 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC) TThis ought to be added.

--Simfan34 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the story, though who can believe Musharraf. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, be nice. I'm as surprised as anyone, but when he actually does what he said he would do, namely resign from his military post if elected as president, have a little reciprocal goodwill. That stated, this should definitely have more than an one-sentence note halfway through the entry and pobably be put on the main page. This is big news, after all. 71.109.101.202 (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bhutto's murder
How do you think it should be incorporated into the article that Musharraf ordered Benazir Bhutto to be shot? --80.220.68.44 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That can not and I doubt it'll be done before in ages, without further evidence of who killed Benazir Bhutto now they're saying she was killed by Al-Qaeda like I said.. it's all nonsence we all know who did it, they're just to scared to say it public same with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanonkas (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is some articles to prove what I said, lots of information, no REAL evidence: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.friday/index.html

Here is another one, they just CLAIMS no real evidence: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL29Df01.html

No papers tells it was Pervez and no police evidence either so nope.. Can't be taken in. --Kanonkas 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

state of emergency in 2007
There are 2 sections talking about the state of emergency in 2007. Is there any chance they could be merged?--Rockfang (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are three section about the emergency
 * August state of emergency rumours
 * Emergency declared in Pakistan
 * State of Emergency 2007
 * and they all should be merged. -- S M S  Talk 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'''

ATTENTION NEEDED
Could an admin created a spouse field in the info box and add the name Sehba Musharraf. This is his wife and she is the First lady of Pakistan. Once added could you create a link so that I may create a page for this title.

Thanks

some references
 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/images/20060304-2_p030406sc-0215-515h.html
 * http://www.the-south-asian.com/July2001/Sehba%20Musharraf.htm
 * http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=126441''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.253.81 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently the article page for Sehba Musharraf exists but is redirected to the Pervez Musharraf page. You can create a page for her by clicking here. And as far as your concern that her name should be added in the infobox, I think it may not be possible as both the infoboxes at the page don't have any field for mentioning spouse of the person. There is a field relation in the Military person Infobox(if not you can add it), but that too asks for notable relations to be mentioned. -- S M S  Talk 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Long March
But Musharraf retaliated by declaring a state of emergency in November and finally deposed the chief justice and other senior colleagues. New prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani freed Chaudhry in March, but the coalition government could not agree on how to reinstate the judges.afp.google.com, Deposed Pakistan judge heads for protest rallyOn June 10, 2008, thousands of Pakistani lawyers led by deposed (in November) Chief Justice Chaudhry and Sabihuddin Ahmed (deposed chief justice of the high court in Sindh), started the '"long march", rallies and protests across Multan, Pakistan. In what they called an 'historic day' to demand the reinstatement of dozens of senior judges sacked last year, 4,000 activists from various political parties chanted slogans: "Go, Musharraf, Go!," "Here comes the lion!" and "Musharraf is an American dog!" Protesters will arrive at Islamabad, Karachi on Thursday. Nawaz and Imran would participate in the long march.news.bbc.co.uk, Pakistani lawyers in 'long march'--Florentino floro (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation given (/ˈpəɹ.vɛz muˈʃɑɹ.əf/) is anglicized; should an accurate (Urdu) pronunciation not be given? (I think it would be /pərˈvez muˈʃər.əf/, but I am not an expert and would not feel comfortable changing it myself.) Languagehat (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Links
I just saw the list of external links. Wikipedia is not a source to advertise web logs and whathaveyou. Some of the sources should be cited in the section or removed. Lihaas (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Photograph edit war and controversy
Recently, there has been an edit war and much to-ing and fro-ing with respect to the main photograph of Pervez Musharraf for this article, as you can all see from the recent (last 1-2 week) history. The images that are being added, removed, edited and re-edited around are:


 * - Official Pakistan Army portrait of Pervez Musharraf. Sadly, the uploader has failed to give certify the copyright etc info for this photograph. But this is still my top preference, because of the full 4-star General uniform if nothing else. Look at Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, etc and all other such personalities who came to be the head of state and government of their respective countries not through elections and/or due democratic process, but instead by military coup or other such action. For all the above articles, the dictators have been shown in full army uniform in their main portrait photograph for the articles, which clearly and aptly summarizes their legacy as well.


 * - Some photograph taken when he was on a visit to the White House by the US federal government agencies, therefore has proper copyright and other info.


 * - Some photograph taken by a Brazilian government news agency's website, also has proper copyright and other info.

So which one do we use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: The photo of him in uniform. I notice his nametag reads PERVEZ. Why does it not read MUSHARRAF? Isn't Pervez his first name (I hesitate to use the term "Christian name")? 38.115.185.13 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)LNelson

Mush, a nickname for Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf
The Mush dab page has this line: Google search results show that this usage is very common. However, the article does not mention it. --Jtir 18:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mush, a nickname for Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf


 * Just because the nickname is used online does not mean that it has any relevance to this article. If family, friends, colleagues and/or acquaintances of Musharraf called him "Mush," then it might be included. But, unless this is the case, the article should not address this. (I suspect that it is a nickname used by English-speaking web users, not speakers of Urdu or Punjabi, languages spoken in Pakistan.) If some people called you a little-known nickname, unbeknownst to you, would you think that it deserves inclusion in your biography? Bottom line: It is not of broad concern to readers and has little to do with Musharraf himself. Cheers. ask123 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

more like millions of pakistanis did that,both for the friendly sound as for the indication of confusion i would say, but i have no opinion upon wether to include it.77.251.34.32 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Media's slowness to follow BBC's lead
It is about 1:15 PM Pakistan time, 9:15 GMT, 4:15 EST and 1:15 PST, and the only major news outlet that has reported that Musharraf has officially announced that he said he is definitely resigning in his hour-long plus speech of August 18th to the nation (of Pakistan, natch) is the BBC. Why hasn't anyone else put out a corresponding report yet? Could the BBC be mistaken? I watched much of it myself (I understand Urdu) and didn't actually hear him say he was going to do it. Keep in mind that other news sources might have put out an article that made it into the feed between the time I started this subheading in Mushy's talk page and the time I finished it and it was officially saved into the Wiki record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoaffectional (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is NOT NEUTRAL
The people who constantly remove a balanced view from this essay continue not to allow any mention of the fact that Musharraf is in an alliance with the Muttahida Majlis Amal, a collection of religious extremist parties in Pakistan which includes the Jamaat Islami. This groups website makes their radical connections clear and their leader has appeared on the BBC's hardtalk programme denying Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the WTC. Musharraf's alliance with this party has constantly been removed from this article because it contradicts the regimes desire to portray his liberal image. For our part we have not deleted the references to hsi liberalism but any opposing view has constantly been deleted. This alone makes this article biased and it should be advertised as such. (163.1.231.83 04:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Musharraf cannot pretend that the MMA does not exist and has no votebank. He has to deal with everyone in Pakistan. A foreigners sitting in the US may demand that the MMA be completely isolated, that is not possible inside Pakistan.

>Musharaf is in Allaince with the MQM, which is far more dangerous than the MMA. While the MMA is an unorganized collection of Islamic Parties, MQM is responsible for the worst acts of violence and probably the biggest body of organized crime inside the sindh province. Most of its leaders are still afraid to set footy in Pakistanm, even though they are in government right now, becausder they ruffled some serious feathers in their day. They are certainly responsible for more deaths than Al-qaeda(probably as much as the LTTE). His allaince with MMA in Baluchistan is meaningless, as no party has done anything for the people of that province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.198.35 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it is not neutral, musharaf can be credited for bringing free speech, free press and womans rights to pakistan, even pakistanis themself that don't like musharaf say that. strangely the idea in pakistan atm. is such they are willing to sacrifice that for "improvement" (unfortunately being connotated 'sharia'), wich is at the same time supposed to 'stop the war of terror'. i have no clue how usia came to discard musharaf (agreed to send bhutto). It will be very counterproductive or so you wish 'productive' for their war for terror. If history does right to mush. i think he will still be a lot researched, he has been a really outstanding character in the world and the region and done more for pakistan then apparently has yet been noticed in most of the world.77.251.34.32 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

musharraf is good
but pakistani fanatics are stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.177.31.12 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

views by ahmed
President Musharaf from my views: i am an undergraduat student. I have studied the era of President Musharaf and i have few questions to ask from him: 1. why he is not giving up from military or on the other hand from politics. He have to give up from one side. According to Quaid e Azam, Pakistan is a country run by democratic politicians but not from the dictators.

2. It has been said that what ever happened on Kargil was a mistake of President Sharif? If it was then why is it on same side said that General Musharaf showed shocking lack of strategy at that stage when he was needed most.

3. In his book 'In the line of fire' i was expecting some thing i say as 'more relevent to the present stage'. I am not criticizing him. But as i am reading alot about him i have concluded from this book that he is trying to be a leader but he dont have the right potensial to be one.

4. He said that corruption is decreasing. Where before Pakistan stands on the corruption list as 79 and now its on 142.

5. Perisident Musharaf is better than other leaders but he is most dangerous too.

6. President Musharaf is a sign of complete dictatorship.

mate ur a complete nincapoop going from 79 to 142 on the corruption list does not represent incease but decrease in corruption —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.172.31 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental correction was needed
Pervez Musharraf held the post equivalent to Prime Minister after removing fromer Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the military coup of October 1999. He chose the title of "Chief Executive of Pakistan" when he appointed himself the head of government. Therefore following sentence needs some correction.

"Previously, he was Prime Minister of Pakistan as well as former Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army"

Sohail Gogal 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This bio of Musharraf is wrriten by Nawaz shirff
well it looks like it, its completly biased, atleast give him creadit for the economy, and according to transparency website, pakistan has moved from 2nd corrupt nation in the world to 43rd, so put that in is well.

-- It appears that the entire section "2004..." describing him and his "great" team is copy pasted from a PR brochure of the ex-dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.98.9 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, this article has been written by Musharraf followers and is very POV in his favor. 83.108.240.219 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

POV Issues
This article stinks of POV and hero worship. The economy section is especially bad, and thus I will remove it. (Using Musharrafs own site as reference is sheer propaganda.)

edit: Bah, the article is locked and so I can't edit/remove the entries made by Opinion786. He has already been warned for his POV edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.240.219 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Military dictator?
Wouldn't it be more in line of impartiality to call him military leader rather than dictator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) I strongly agree. Musharraf is a Military Dictator.Bilalahmadj (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section
I don't know who wrote this, but it's awfully biased. It refers to his team as "great" and even uses an exclamation mark to punctuate the "100%" rise in Pakistan's economy (whatever that actually means). Can somebody please tidy this up? It makes a mockery of Wikipedia as a supposedly neutral source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is true. This article is uploaded by ISPR with whom a sensible Pakistani cannot agree.Bilalahmadj (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please categorize Musharraf as Military Dictator. He wasn't President, Prime Minister by Constitution.

A government employee cannot oust the Head of the State.Bilalahmadj (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is bizarre. I have never seen a Wikipedia article about an important person written as biased as this.  Even Mother Teresa has more critizism.  According to this, Musharraf was perfect and revered by all Pakastanis and the world (aside from his little coup d'état followed by military dictatorship thing).  All I can say is "wow."  --- W5WMW (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Women's rights
The section on woman's rights seems to glorify Musharraf in a way that goes against the neutrality of this website. Can someone take a look at that? M0rg4n (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Is Musharraf Sindh, Baluchi, Punjabi, Pashtun?93.183.230.238 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Corruption Issues, Steel Mills Case
The part of the Corruption Issues section on the "Steel Mills" case needs help. The essential issue of the accused scandal is not explained, but someone is defending Musharraf against the accusations using all capitol letter words. I don't know anything about the case, but someone should remove the rhetoric and write a clear summary of the accusations in the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.228.6 (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy
All sources cited under the "Economy" section come not only from a blog, and may therefore not be as scholarly (something that would seem important when discussing variations in GDP growth rates under Musharraf, but also that the blog itself seems to have been created as a vehement, if haphazard tribute/advertisement for former president Musharraf.

The section itself should likely be elaborated on, as simply decrying Nawaz Sharif's time in the late 1990s seems inefficient. The section does little to discuss the evolution of the service sector, the downward trend of the agricultural sector, reasons why GDP growth rates reached 6.5% by 2007, or anything beyond loaded statistics. The article needs to be more specific about the economic reforms that Musharraf instituted. 152.33.76.183 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Education
Information included demonstrates clear and intentional bias. The literacy rate for instance, has remained almost exactly the same since the creation of the Pakistani state. 152.33.76.183 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite Immediately Necessary
The background regarding how Musharraf came to power is an incredibly biased recounting of events that leaves out a good deal of information. Sharif fired Musharraf while he was in the air, flying back to Pakistan. The military than usurped Sharif and by the time Musharraf was on the ground (an ordeal in and off itself) he assumed control of the government. He than exiled Sharif to Saudi Arabia. The section on Sharif's return to Pakistan makes it seem as if Sharif was breaking the law and Musharraf was an innocent or possibly absent party, when in fact it was Musharraf who exiled him in the first place. This article needs to be rewritten entirely. Unlike other articles that are simply products of vandalism, this masquerades under the facade of truth by attributing loaded, biased, and often simply wrong information as historical fact, and covering it with sources that don't hold up under even the most basic scrutiny.

This is the third time now that I've gone over and re-read every section of this article, and I have yet to find one that isn't filled with grammatical errors or and blatant and deplorable advertisement. Many sentences lack punctuation and proper structure, others have unnecessary italics or bold lettering. Because this article is about a prominent political figure on the global stage, and will likely be accessed often, this entire article needs to be rewritten immediately. I would recommend that until that can happen, the majority of the article itself simply be deleted. 152.33.76.183 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinion is rampant in legacy
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the guy but a paragraph like this does not belong in wikipedia:


 * "President Musharraf led a great team of economists and professionals alongwith ex-PM Shaukat Aziz, to mark their achievements. Their Economic Achievementscaused Pakistan to emerge as a geo-strategic important country with a 100% better economy."

That section needs fixing. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Agreed. It has been added by someone who's a big fanboy of Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz, because the same user (using several sockpuppet accounts) has indulged in adding similar hagiographical material on Aziz's article. - Max - You were saying? 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

article should include information about his family
And background It is important for an article on a famous person to include information about his family his brothers and sisters --Notedgrant (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"war on terror" is inappropriate
Call the war on terror the war on terror - not, the "war on terror". Unlike the Vietnam war (which on Wikipedia is not surrounded by quotations) the war on terror has been declared by a near-unanimous vote in the US Congress. Therefore it is factually inaccurate and representative of a non-neutral POV to refer to the war as the "war on terror".

> The US Congress does not determine what is fact.


 * The US government is, however, allowed to define its military relations with the rest of the world.

"The US threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda, President Pervez Musharraf has said. General Musharraf said the warning was delivered by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Pakistan's intelligence director." "The Pakistani president said that, following the attacks of 11 September 2001, the US made some "ludicrous" demands of istan.

"The intelligence director told me that Mr Armitage said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age'," he said.

The US envoy also insisted that Pakistan suppress domestic expression of support for attacks on the United States, he said.

"If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," Gen Musharraf said.

Mr Armitage also allegedly demanded that Pakistan allow the US to use its border posts as staging points for the war on Afghanistan. "

SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5369198.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.135.235 (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect info about his mil career
1) He was not involved at Asal Uttar, his unit 16 SP only went as far as Khem Karan, indeed the lack of artillery was a cause of the failure of the attack at Asal Uttar

2) He was not the commander of SSG in Siachin-N Area sector. He was the head of SSG, which is an admonistrative not an operational posting. In Pakistan SSG units are attached as companys or battalions to various formations as needed, and are under the operational command of the formation commander (in this case Force Commander Northern Areas)O. He has had no role in any failuer or success (such as at Chumik) of SSG or any other unit operating in Northern Areas.

3) He commanded Im Corps for 3 years. No such thing as an elite strike corps, at the time (and now, though not for a few years in between), the Corps was a heacy armour formation, with an armoured, a heavy and a mechanized division and this its role was offensive.

4) He did not see any service in 1971, he was attached to SSG center in Cherat (NWFP).

5) He was not commissioned in Artillery. He was commmissioned in Ack Ack Artillery (36 Lt Ack Ack Regt now called as 36 Air Defence Regiment). Later he went to SSG and on termination of his SSG tenure he was transfered to Artillery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alp.arsalan (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Musharraf's family background
There seems to some confusion about the socioeconomic status of Musharraf's family. I believe the confusion comes from an article that describes Musharraf's father, Syed Musharraf-ud-Din, as a "cashier" in the Directorate General of Civil Supplies in India. In modern American usage, the term cashier is a person responsible for totaling the amount due for a purchase and then charging the consumer for that amount. In the British Raj, however, the word "cashier" meant "treasurer" or Comptroller.

Another controversial element is that the original article claims that his father was 'Secretary of Foreign Affairs' (which is untrue). First of all, since the inception of the Pakistan Foreign Service, no such has rank existed till the time of this edit/comment. Secondly, according to the Pakistan Foreign Service Records, his father belonged to what was known as the 'Section Officer scheme' (a promotion scheme to promote & reward long serving secretarial staff to an officer cadre prior to retirement), and is never considered part of the country's diplomatic service. The Officer cadre in the Foreign Service starts at Grade 17 to Grade 22. The cadre started in 1948 and lasted till 1973 and was replaced by the 'Commons Batch', that is a combined batch of civil servants. Prior to this the District Management Group and Foreign Service Officers Group had separate career and training tracts. I am trying to get a scanned copy for the record to put an end this prolonged controversy. There is nothing derogatory about this position in the Civil Service and only reflects relatively humble beginnings and qualifies Mr. Musharraf as extraordinary anyway.Sonaris (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Sonaris

However, according to this report from Express India, his extended family lived in a 24,817 sq.ft. compound, suggesting that they were fairly well-off.


 * Does anybody know if this guy is Punjabi or an Urdu-Speaker?


 * This guy is a muhajir and is a urdu speaker. He has nothing to do with Punjab.  By the way idleguy thinks this is not a family tree however why have his brother in the subject

His autobiography states that his parents were Urdu speakers, but that he had to learn the language in his mid-teens at his return from Turkey.

Facebook?
How is it important that there are facebook groups for supporters of Musharraf. There groups for everything. NoWay555 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * no, probably not, I will delete it V. Joe (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

POV/Advertisement
An unknown contributor has placed a script on the top of the page. I have replaced it with a as more appropriate. Obviously nobody is trying to use wikipedia to sell Pervez Musharraf bobble-heads. If nobody has any objections after a day or two, I will remove even the POV tag. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, lets keep it POV, the article does read a bit too much like it was written by a passionate Musharraf supporter. However, I stand by my remark with advertising. V. Joe (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Musharraf's family background
A controversial element is that the original article claims that his father was 'Secretary of Foreign Affairs' (which is untrue). First of all, since the inception of the Pakistan Foreign Service, no such has rank existed till the time of this edit/comment. Secondly, according to the Pakistan Foreign Service Records, his father belonged to what was known as the 'Section Officer scheme' (a promotion scheme to promote & reward long serving secretarial staff to an officer cadre prior to retirement), and is never considered part of the country's diplomatic service. The Officer cadre in the Foreign Service starts at Grade 17 to Grade 22. The cadre started in 1948 and lasted till 1973 and was replaced by the 'Commons Batch', that is a combined batch of civil servants. Prior to this the District Management Group and Foreign Service Officers Group had separate career and training tracts. I am trying to get a scanned copy for the record to put an end this prolonged controversy. There is nothing derogatory about this position in the Civil Service and only reflects relatively humble beginnings and qualifies Mr. Musharraf as extraordinary anyway.Sonaris (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Sonaris Its strange that this section had been deleted without discussion. Here is the Civil Service Link pertaining to ranks [url=http://www.csspk.com/Foreign_Service_of_Pakistan.htm]and more links are to follow.Sonaris (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC) According to his memoirs 'In the line of fire', he (Musharraf)clearly mentions that his father joined the Foreign Office as an Accountant (this clearly stipulates that he was in Grade 16 - who enjoy an 'Official' not 'Diplomatic' status). Additionally, he mentions that he retired as a Director (normally in Grade 18) but did not get posted in that grade abroad.Sonaris (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your logic is pretty good but I don't think so one can edit this unless we see any press release from Foreign Office of Pakistan or any notable news report. Never the less upload any relevant documents you have and I might get in touch with any investigative journalist to highlight the issue. Sarmadhassan (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Early life
I have tagged the link to the Official Biography of Pervez Musharraf (a Pakistani government site) as broken. Elsewhere at that site there is a drastically reduced biography with none of the details of his birthplace.

The issue of preferred spelling for the birthplace has arisen. A Google search revealed 2390 hits for "Neharwali Haveli" and 1070 for "Nehar Wali Haveli." The article currently has it as the latter but points to a reference that spells it Neharwali. I would suspect this is one of those cases where both are correct, given that the name has gone through transliteration into English. Can we find some better references? [User:Peter Chastain|Peter Chastain] ([User talk:Peter Chastain|talk]) 05:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added [Internet archive] link. —[User talk:SpaceFlight89|SpaceFlight89] 11:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually "Nehar Wali Haveli" is english transliteration of an urdu word نہر والی حویلی which by no means can be written as "Neharwali" as one world. Nehar Wali Haveli by itself is not a birthplace. It is composed of نہر meaning "canal" والی meaning "belongs" حویلی meaning "canal". Everybody who have intermediate knowledge of both english and urdu would type Nehar Wali. I donot think google hits can determine correct language translation still if you see, most of the Pakistani sites (where official language is URDU) have "Nehar Wali Haveli". Fellow editors will find me very stubborn on this because I know the language and I do not think wikipedia should repeat the mistakes what other sites have made. Still for the fellows who are not familiar with URDU, while searching "nehar wali" and "neharwali" at google.com.pk you will find that most of the websites mentioning "neharwali" are travel websites while most newspapers mention "Nehar Wali" . If I am going to be a good wikipedian, I will follow newspaper website more because they go through vigorous editing procedures as compared to travel websites. Sarmadhassan (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SpaceFlight89, thanks for getting back a good link. Sarmadhassan, thank you for the clarification on the name. As you have guessed, I am completely unfamiliar with Urdu (or Punjabi, etc., for that matter). I agree with your observation about newspapers versus travel sites. The scary thing is that many (most?) travel sites copy their information verbatim from Wikipedia. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits by Yellow Monkey
YellowMonkey reverted the edits of Atafida. Atafida edit was much more appropriate to Wikipedia standards as it highlights the sequence of events with an internal wiki link.

After independence of Pakistan, Musharraf's family migrated to Pakistan (Atafida)

After partition, Musharraf's family migrated to Pakistan (YellowMonkey)

Atafida edit looks more professional

Sarmadhassan (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Legacy
The legacy section is extremely pro-Musharraf... whatever happened to NPOV? 121.45.186.239 (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Edits by Salmanj10
Article 6 has yet not been brought into the Parliament nor have the proceedings taken place. These are merely demands by a political party, the Nawaz group, and no other major party is desiring as such. As such the imposition of Article-6 are plain rumors. Daily and routine rumors cannot be added to Wikipedia projects. If any such proceedings do take place, in near future, then it would be appropriate to include Article-6, otherwise, political demands by politicians are routine matters and are not actual implementations. Below NPOV News:

1- The President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has said that "“All international and local powers, which have stakes in the region, were guarantors of General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s negotiated resignation"

2- The President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, tacitly conceded that "Musharraf could not be tried under Article 6 of the Constitution as was being demanded by some opposition parties, especially the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

3- Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has assured former president Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif will not demand a treason trial for him under Article 6 of the constitution.

4- Saudi King Shah Abdullah Abdul Aziz has advised Quaid Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) and Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif to avoid controversial issue and promote reconciliation for continuation of democratic system in the country. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has also been asked to avoid touching controversial issue and should play role to steer the country out of political issues, sources added.

Hence reverting back edits by Salmanj10 GeneralNeo (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I do not accept edits by Salmanj10, which I believe are yet not relevent, related to Article-6, when it has yet not been brought into the Parliament and they are pure slogans/demands by politicians. But adding PML-Q's version also to bring neutrality and we should also add Mr.Pervez Musharraf's opinion and views on it as well, without which ofcourse it is not NPOV

GeneralNeo (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Salmanj10, Though Article-6 is an imaginary issue and which has yet NOT been brought into the Parliament, nor has any such procedure been instigated in Senate. They are unrealistic slogans or demands by one partcular political party. They should be included in Politics of Pakistan Wiki page. Yet, if you decide to include Article-6 in Mr. Musharraf's page, you must add and present the view points of all parties involved, or remove this 'sub-heading' all-together. Without the viewpoints of ALL CONCERNED PARTIES included, this sub-heading 'Article-6' on Musharraf page cannot be considered as NPOV. You cannot decide unilaterally, which Supreme Court of Pakistan is constitutional and which is not. This below must be added to present NPOV. Please refrain from unnecessary edits. Thanks.

Meanwhile, Proclamation of Emergency and Revocation is the constitutional right of the President of Pakistan, according to the constitution of Pakistan, Article 232 and Article 236. On 15 Februaury 2008, the Supreme Court has delivered detailed judgement to validate the Proclamation of Emergency on 3rd November 2007, the Provisional Constitution Order No 1 of 2007 and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007.

GeneralNeo (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Domestic Section Bias
The article, in particular the presidency section, is biased and includes statements which show clear violation of wikipedia's policy of maintaing neutral POV.

Economy section does not cite its given figures for the Nawaz Sharif administration. Source 45 leads to Musharraf fan blog.

Statements like "Pakistan saw exceptional setup of 47 universities" serve no purpose and the exceptional status of these institutions can be disputed.

Information on the reinstatement of the Chief Justice of Pakistan is outdated. He has since been reinstated.

No sourcing on Lal Masjid section claims of "six months to lay down arms and abide the law of country". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachchal (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Zahid Hussein no authentic Authority to judge President Musharraf's actions against extremism
Fragma08,

Zahid Hussein is just another tilted journalist expressing his opinions and views. He’s no definite authority to comment and judge President Musharraf’s actions regarding elimination of extremism. I hope your understand, that by adding every other journalists opinions on Wiki pages, it would render the pages as meaningless baised posts. General policy by leaders and their implementations should be added. Musharraf’s policy regarding extremism was added as a link. “On 12 January 2002, Musharraf gave a landmark speech against Islamic extremism, a few months after September 11. He unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism and pledged to combat Islamic extremism and lawlessness within Pakistan itself. He vowed, the government was committed to root out extremism and made it clear that the banned militant organizations would not be allowed to resurface under any new name.He stressed, "the recent decision to ban extremist groups promoting militancy was taken in the national interest after thorough consultations. It was not taken under any foreign influence” http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/05/top8.htm

Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf has taken a firm stand on jihadi organizations and groups promoting extremism, and he is paying a price for it, appearing to be losing out on all fronts. Musharraf-led government arrested Maulana Masood Azhar, head of the Jaish-i-Mohammad, and Hafiz Saeed, chief of the Lashkar-i-Taiba, and took dozens of activists into custody. An official ban was imposed on the groups on January 12 this year. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DH20Df07.html

GeneralNeo (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Aijazz Ahmed an authentic non-tilted authority to commen or judge Musharraf's actions? A bit POV. The Dawn link simply states that Musharraf himself in a speech vowed to do something. Zahid Hussein seems to agree with that but it is the lack of action that he addresses. No surprise as politicians generally vow to do many things but don't nessecarily follow through, which is also mentioned here. Words and action are two different things and media do tend to comment on lots of issues, which makes it possible for people to know, what is happening in the world. So this is little about judging but more about informing. The second link refers to assertions made by Aijazz Ahmed. But if you can find something to counter prove the assertions of Hussein, then go ahead and add these. But there is no need to remove this relevant criticism and political commentary which I have restored. Hope it is ok to offer my comments on this issue even if you are addressing others. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peaceblissharmony, This is actually what we have tried to reiterate, that links and people like Aijazz Ahmed and Zahid Hussein, can only be considered just another POV 'a point of view' like Ahmed Quraishi. Here is Ahmed Quraishi commending President. http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/article_detail.php?id=650

These views cannot be considered authentic or reliable. One can imagine the level of unnecessary inputs on Wiki projects, if we oblige and include all such POVs. Lack of action cannot be considered by articles of one Zahid Hussein or Aijazz Ahmed, when President was the first to ban extremist outfits in Pakistan. These below were practical actions/crack down, that renders the preconceived notions by Zahid Hussein as meaningless. What else are practical efforts?

Musharraf bans resurfacing militant groups, orders crackdown: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200311/ai_kepm360021/

Pakistan bans extremist groups: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1976&dat=20031116&id=DW8iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vKwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2113,3267441

Pakistan bans Muslim extremist groups: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistan-bans-muslim-extremist-groups-663203.html

President and his efforts to fight extremism: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/pakistan.jirga/

GeneralNeo (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, Thanks for your comments. I fully understand what you said, but I don't agree that we can not incorporate such views, which are in fact supported by other media reports: action and words don't go hand in hand and on a whole he failed to curb extremism But I think it is better to discuss the matter and try to reach consensus. If you consider other politicians, you will find the opinions of political commentators and reports by journalists there too. Banning is one thing, but what has been criticized - when I did a little search - is the lack of implementation of such bans and addressing the root problem. i.e. the religious madrassas continue. You did not really elaborate on why you considered Aijaaz as more reliable when you inserted him and kept him - compared to Zahid. Can you explain what you consider to be reliable and authentic views? Both appear to be political commentators. Zahid has also authored a book, "Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam" which has won widespread acclaim as a seminal text on the subject. So I think until consensus is reached, this should be kept. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peaceblissharmony, Thanks for your comments. Yes, this understanding that you have reached upon now, is exactly what I wished to prove. If you think that, we should incorporate the views of Zahid Hussein, than there are several Pro-Musharraf tilted commentators that will also qualify to be given space here. If comments by Zahid Hussein are considered as reliable, there are several others that will assert and approve conclusions by Ahmed Quraishi, Zaid Zaman and Aijazz. My only contention is we cannot include every single version or POV on Wiki pages. Regarding your basic question or understanding that 'Religious madressas continue'- one should be aware that these religious madressas have continued to exist since early 1980s, supported by every single government of Pakistan. It were the government under President Musharraf that they were dismantled to a large extend and science subjects also introduced in order to reform them. Therefore, if anyone has reservations regarding 'Religious Madressas' - let it be know that a large population of Pakistan receives free education from them and they no not necessarily constitute extremism. President's actions to ban several extremist outfits speak at length about his government's actions. He has even been criticized by political parties to launch an action against Lal Masjid in Islamabad. People do question, the PPP government that has been here since two years, have they succeeded in dismantling the Madressas? The deep rooted system running in Pakistan since 1980s cannot be blamed squarely on one person or any government. In order to keep the article on Wiki neutral, I'll delete both the commentaries by Zahid and Aijazz. They are entitled to their POV like the hundreds of other journalists and their version should be added to their personal Wiki pages as their POV regarding extremism or face of Pakistani politics.

GeneralNeo (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, thanks for your comments too. I still disagree that it should be removed. I think both Aijazz and Hussein's comments should stay. This is not about being pro or con, but the article should reflect any such points which have been rasied both by political commentators as well as certain organizations who work with international policy. Journalists serve to inform and in this case we are dealing with at least one person who is well versed on politics. The madrassas are seen as the root cause to the problem with extremism among other other things (appeasement of certain religious groups - inspite of the Lal Mosque attack). The measures he did take or did not take have been criticized. And the military's longtime support from and of the religious groupings is also known pointed out by Hussein. So we will leave both be and if you can find some references which show that Musharraf fulfilled his promises from 2002 by 2007/2008 then do include these. Still can you explain what you think qualify as "authentic and reliable". This still remains unclear. I think it will be hard to reference much if we treat all journalistsic efforts and media reports as POVs. So do leave the Hussein and Aijaaz paragraphs in there. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, as the problems highlighted in the commentaries are important to the article. All political profiles will undoubtedly have issues which were not addressed in full or at all during terms serves. This is irrespective of parties, politicians. I think if we can not reach consensus here then perhaps we should get other eyes to view this. You are welcome to call in an administrator if you like. If you read my last reference you will find that an organization has been following the development on the area of extremism in Pakistan under Musharraf for many years and they conclude the same as Hussein. The article is long, but do read it through. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peaceblissharmony, we have in the past deleted several commentaries by Ahmed Quraishi, Zaid Zaman and other journalist. They all are entilted to their POV, but I hope you understand, every single commentary cannot be added to Wiki pages. If we allow the commentaries of both, and other unncessary ones - I'm sure we'll soon need a massive clean up of these Wiki pages. Let's not render Wiki pages as meaningless articles. We have to understand that there are not just two journalist (Zahid and Aijazz) in Pakistan and India, rather, thousands and additionally, several thousands of students that may wish to include their POV in any subject. Lastly, its just not the Pakistani military's support, but it has always been a government policy that is practiced or implemented through the Pakistani military. Since the last two years, its the PPP government and before that since 1980s others were involved. General Hameed Gul is on record several times, as to accept the Taliban as his creation. A policy that has been adopted since 1980s cannot be blamed on one single person and does not qualify to be added to a person's Wiki page. It may however, be added to Extremism in Pakistan page or Terrorism in Pakistan.

GeneralNeo (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, I appreciate your comments, but again I advise you to kindly state what you believe to be "reliable and authentic" sources and also refer to the article reference I posted yesterday which shows that this is not a POV stated by Hussein but rather a overall assesment from 2002 by an independent organization and beyond and the promises were made by Musharraf but action taken was little. When you say "we" who do you mean? I thought it was just you and I discussing things? I am not suggesting we put POVs but there will be POVs from both sides but some will be supported by other sources whereas some will not. At the end of the day we can not avoid media reports and go solely according to the words of Musharraf as that will definetely be a POV. Politicians are criticized everyday but in this case others appear to share those concerns of Hussein too. Kindly read the article and perhaps it is time an administrator is approached on the issue. Until some consensus is reached however, we should not remove anything pertaining to this issue. In your edits you remove the Hussein bit and Aijaaz bit but also included a new piece with a statement from Musharraf himself. This does not give much neutrality as during his term others have noticed he did not follow up on his words. That is the issue here. Not Hussein, reporters, or such. Hope this clarifies. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, I don't think much will ensue from editing when there is still no consensus. I think it is time to call in some other editors, an administrator as we are clearly not moving anywhere. I fully understand your views but I don't agree with it, as I have mentioned how this is not some POV by one journalist and referred to the article twice now, but you have just edited out the part you object to, leaving one sided view of things: Musharraf vowed to do something about extremism. but no mention of the failure of following up this with proper action. So kindly, once again, until you get consensus do not edit this section any further or remove these issues. Bring in administration instead. More eyes are better. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peaceblissharmony, I also appreciate your comments. Like I wrote earlier, these POV should rightly be added to Terrorism in Pakistan Wiki Page. Hence I removed both comments of Zahid and Aijazz, earlier which I may have overlooked. Anything that contradicts with the practical steps taken by the government of Pakistan, cannot be considered neutral nor reliable. We must also keep in mind that Zahid Hussein has criticized a personality rather government policies, which makes them tilted. If his intentions are to be judged, they should be included in the WIki page of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) or if they meant to address matters pertaining to extremism they qualify to be included in Terrorism in Pakistan. Similarly, Aijazz Ahmed's commentary also reflect a policy regading independent organization. My question is, how many independent organizations can we adjust on this one Wiki page? How many opinions and comments by independent journalist can we allow space here? We cannot allow few critics to present their POV and disallow others. By we, I meant every other person who may be interested in adding his POV. President banned organizations and that is a fact that cannot be over-ruled. Lastly, my point is we cannot blame one person, a President, for the performance of any government under a Prime Minister. We must judge governments, in this case, the government of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) or the Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. I do not mind to administrators. I would welcome them.

- Musharraf bans resurfacing militant groups, orders crackdown:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200311/ai_kepm360021/ - Pakistan bans extremist groups:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1976&dat=20031116&id=DW8iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vKwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2113,3267441 - President and his efforts to fight extremism:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/pakistan.jirga/

GeneralNeo (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, can you kindly read through the article I referred to several times now. I did read all your articles which is how I was able to offer my feedback. We are still stuck on making this into an individual POV by Hussein. It is not. The man appears to be well versed in the politics of Pakistan and his statements are corraborated by the previously mentioned reference and in there a report. So although you can go ahead and list this information in the article regarding extremism in Pakistan, this also needs to be kept here, because Musharraf in the capacity of leadership has some power as leaders do across the world. I can not agree to this information being omitted at this point, because this would create a POV in the article. I ask again, can you tell me exactly what sources or people you deem "authentic and reliable" to be cited here? You have not answered that yet. This is important as this was the reason cited in your edit summary when removing the information, which I have restored and which will stay there until we can reach a consensus. But I think it will be very difficult with an article if all media reports must be rejected as POVs (if I understand you correctly) and only the words of Musharraf himself taken as source. The article is laced with media report references. Journalists investigate and inform. I think both sides should be noted in the article with reasonable amount of referencing. But if you deem articles by journalists and possibly indepedendent expertise reports to be unsubmissable, then you need to state what you do deem reliable and authentic. Because not many options are left when media is removed as that remains the main source between the public and politicians and public figures. Citing more reports speaking only for one side of things won't help much, unfortunately. I have already read them. Neutrality must be observed. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: "Anything that contradicts with the practical steps taken by the government of Pakistan, cannot be considered neutral nor reliable." Í don't agree, considering it is the practical steps themselves or lack of, which are called out or criticized by numerous sources other than Hussein. The promises were made by Musharraf (cited in the article) and up til 2007, not enough or solid efforts were undertaken. Religious schools being one of them although he himself (in reports) had vovwed to align the curriculum and schoooling in madrassas with normal schools so to ensure a weed out of the extremism. That did not happen. So question is, what was actially done, and to what extent and how futile that was to the cause itself. That is essense of the criticism really. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just inserting the links for your viewing:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/3_35.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618541/Nothing-will-change-until-Musharraf-closes-Pakistans-militant-madrassas.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceblissharmony (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peaceblissharmony, I have also read your article and hence able to comment on it. Exactly, the point I'm also making is that while you may consider Zahid Hussein to be 'Well versed in politics of Pakistan' which is entirely your POV. The article by Aijazz Aslam contradicts the analysis by Zahid Hussein. If you wish, I can paste several other POV of several other Pakistani and Indian journalist as well, and their POV may differ from those presented by Zahid Hussein. We cannot allow selective coverage on Wiki pages. Below are few that contradict Zahid Hussein's POV. Should they all be included on Wiki page? 1- Here is another POV, by Kamran Nazeer "However, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Musharraf faces personal danger as he attempts to dismantle jihadist networks in Pakistan—a danger that civilian leaders, who are even more unpopular than Musharraf with elements of the armed forces, may be unwilling to face. The prospects of success are also affected by the fact that no Pakistani government has ever fully controlled the border regions where most of the jihadists and the Taliban are operating. Even at official checkpoints, border guards are more likely to be loyal to (or to fear) local feudal chiefs than the distant federal government" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/12/inpraiseofmusharraf/ 2- Here is another POV, "''President Pervez Musharraf has launched a campaign to marginalise these groups which previously were believed to have enjoyed support from Pakistan's army. During the anti-Soviet Afghan War, Muslim militant groups were empowered by the state, gained world approval, and secured access to resources". There is risk involved as these extremists see him [President Musharraf] as a puppet of America and Western powers" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/1742651.stm   3- Rice praises Musharraf for role fighting terrorism: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-08-18-rice-musharraf_N.htm   4- Here is a POV of Hassan Abbas, author of "Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism" and a research fellow at Harvard University, says Musharraf has made an effort to crack down on terrorism in areas that don’t directly undermine his political base, such as the military actions against al-Qaeda in Waziristan, and Pakistan has arrested some of al-Qaeda’s prominent leaders, who “may not be number one or two, but certainly people who are up there in the hierarchy.”''

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2831/why_pakistan_gets_a_nuclear_pass/

5- “I express our thanks to President Musharraf for his bold and courageous actions as part of the global coalition against international terrorism.” --Colin Powell, October 16 2001

6- In 2004, a suggestion of awarding the Noble Peace Prize to President Musharraf has been made from such an important quarter but seeing the very clear role being played by the Pakistani President in fighting terrorism against Al Qaeda and other extremist groups within Pakistan, several important figures and organisations have also begun supporting General Musharraf as the strongest entrant for the Noble Peace Prize. http://pakistantimes.net/2004/03/03/top10.htm

My question again is, are we willing to accomodate all these POV on one single Musharraf page? While it should be governments that should be held responsible or alternatively these articles be added to Terrorism in Pakistan Wiki page. I can present hundreds more. All these above contradict Zahid Hussein. Hence it better to refrain from posting keep personal POV or alternatively, if you wish, I can add all the above to the President Musharraf page, while keeping Zahid Hussein and aijazz Ahmed?

GeneralNeo (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, I fail to understand why you would need to add all of the above (5 statements of praise). When you removed the Hussein paragraph last time, you also removed the Aijazz part, you added a new paragraph of 3 sentences sourced by the CNN article stating the same thing: That Musharraf vowed to do something about estremism. So it was back to where we were before: One side is highlighted (Musharraf said he would do something) and the other side is not (Musharraf made similar statements previous but failed to act on those promises). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pervez_Musharraf&diff=345876652&oldid=345713484 Explain that.

Further Hussein is cited as an expert on politics in some places and he did write a book on the matter which is used by many. Secondly his statements are backed up by independent organizations. So not my POV. But I consider it to be your POV that Hussein and Aijaaz are POVs. Furthermore if you did read the article you will find Hussein is mentioned no where. But others are. Yet you are stuck on Hussein. He is not alone in his assessment of the situation regarding extremism in Pakistan and the role that Musharraf played.

Especially in light of your failure - despite several times asked - to explain what you deem to be "reliable and authentic" sources. Because at the end of the day, journalistic work (articles from news media), expert statements, book excerpts from experts, analysts on i.e. politics, apparantly are deemed POVs. Kindly explain. Afterall this was in your edit summary and reason for removing something you deem a POV. If you can explain what you mean and answer this, then we can move forward.

I think the discussion is all over the place now and not sticking to the issue. Both sides of the story are stated at present, so I am unaware as to why you are still discussing adding multiple sources to source the same issue. 1 source for each sides (Musharraf did promise to do something AND Musharraf did not live up to his words) seems enough (Aijaaz and Hussein). But for starters I would like to know exactly what you believe to be reliable and authentic as this was the reason you used. Using articles to source information is neither new nor unreliable but used throughout this article and on wikipedia in general. So I don't see the cause for your objection. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the over all complexity of the situation, one has to reach to the fair conclusion that Former President Pervez Musharraf boldly adressed the challenge of Terrorism and Extremism. He suffered various assasination attempts of Al-Qaeda and escaped of possible death. Instead of getting defeated by the fears of his life, he emerged out as bold leader, who faced this menace putting eyes to eyes. He, instead of just reacting impulsively, philophised the issue and every where, he differentiated the difference between Extremsim and Terrorism, and educated the World as a whole, how to win this challenge. Extremsim is a state of mind. It needs to be transformed through Education, Employment and better facilities of Life. A Terrorsist is the one who lifts the arms and challenges the state and security of masses. Every where, any one challenged the writ of state, he openly accepted the challenge. The compliments from World Leaders towards his role in dealing the complex situation by taking firm stand against miscreants is enough to undo Mr. Zahid Hussein's judgment. In my honest opinion, I appreciate General Neo's comments and I am convinced that Mr. Zahid Hussein lacks the credibility to judge President Musharraf's actions against extremism and terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castle Age (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it a strange coincidence that you found your way into this very discussion when you appear to be completely new. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peaceblissharmony,

You continue to fail to understand that all POV cannot be added to one person's Wiki page, especially when tilted views cannot be considered as the final verdict.

1- If your visit the Supreme Court of Pakistan you'll see that Pakistani state of emergency, 2007 has been created on a separate page. If you visit the Pervez Musharraf page, you'll see that the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état has been discussed on a separate page. My argument is exactly this. Zahid Hussein's views on extremism should be included on the Terrorism in Pakistan Wiki page.

2- If you consider Zahid Hussein as an expert on Politics and you give him this due consideration that he wrote a book.

I gave you the example of another expert on Politics and Extremism, Hassan Abbas, author of "Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism" and a research fellow at Harvard University, says Musharraf has made an effort to crack down on terrorism in areas that don’t directly undermine his political base, such as the military actions against al-Qaeda in Waziristan, and Pakistan has arrested some of al-Qaeda’s prominent leaders, who “may not be number one or two, but certainly people who are up there in the hierarchy.”

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2831/why_pakistan_gets_a_nuclear_pass/

3- When I added those CNN links, they were facts and NEWS being reported by a News agency and not personal views of any analyst.

4- It is not my failure, rather your kind failure to comprehend that POV of any single person cannot be considered as 'authentic or reliable', source of information, regarding scrutiny of any single personality, in this case Pervez Musharraf. POV are plain personal analysis and not facts. Zahid Hussein's analysis contradict the practical steps taken by the government of PML-Q, where they banned several militant outfits and ordered crack downs, like here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200311/ai_kepm360021/

5- Definitely, if anyone would like to add Zahid Hussein as an authentic source, they should advocate the inclusion of other sources as well. I have given several POV above as examples.

6- Authentic and Reliable, is the fact that Pervez Musharraf had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, for his efforts to fight terrorism and extremism in Pakistan. Don't you find Zahid Hussein's commentary in contradiction to the 'Nobel Committee' who short listed the President, for the prestigious 'Nobel Peace Prize'? http://pakistantimes.net/2004/03/03/top10.htm

7- Lastly, as this is a personality page on Wikipedia, and not an event page. It should basically cover not POV that may be considered tilted, rather, overall information and NEWS regarding the personality, that are supported by Newspaper reporting and not commentaries. News not Views! a- Information regarding the Person, Pervez Musharraf b- The Person's Pervez Musharraf personal views and statements c- The Person's Pervez Musharraf administrative efforts and practical implementation d- The Person's Pervez Musharraf current commitments and obligations.

People like me come over here for News or authentic information, not POV views propagated by any single journalist. I hope you understand this. If you wish Zahid Hussein's personal commentary to qualify for entrance on a personality Wiki page, you have to advocate the inclusion of all other commentaries as well. We cannot advocate bias.

GeneralNeo (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, Your kind failure - in still not answering, what you deem reliable and authentic as sources needs to be addressed. Adding 5 more references to support what the Aijaaz article already says, is pretty redundant. You say facts, well the views asserted by Hussein are as much fact as the rest especially considering that independent organizations are in fact supporting this views on accounts of reports carried out with increments in 2004, 2007 etc. assessing Musharraf's efforts in light of his promises made in 2002. So Hussein too is stating the facts. Adding 5 sources saying the same things, is redundant and this article is not a collection for quotes. I believe they have wiki quote for that purpose. Musharraf's promises of 2002 are notable and have been highlighted in many reports and by many observants and analysts. Every source you use can also be written off as POV. The only criteria you have stated so far is "Anything that contradicts with the practical steps taken by the government of Pakistan, cannot be considered neutral nor reliable.". That is not really solid grounds, as it is the efforts themselves which are subject to debate. Many including Hussein state that Musharraf did not do enough and did not take solid steps to prevent the problem from the root. I.e. his promise regarding the Madrassas was followed up by action. Perhaps you should also acquaint yourself with that side of the story. And no I do not find the Nobel consideration a contradiction with Husseins analysis, considering the Nobel took place in 2004 and Hussein did not make his observations until towards the end of Musharraf's term in 2007 and also the Nobel nomination related to any peace agreement between Vajpayee and Musharraf. This did not happen. So you are mixing up two different issues. The article you cited could very well be interpreted as pro-Musharraf, this lending him such praise. Where is the balance? This is a bit like Obama being nominated and winning the prize. That too has been criticized. I found this which is ironically taken from Asia Times (same references as your Aijaaz article praising Musharraf for his efforts against extremism): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FA27Df03.html It takes a sceptical view of whether Vajpayee and Musharraf deserve such an award "Going by their past performance, it is not as if the records of both Vajpayee and Musharraf have been without blemish" and goes on to elaborate on each of the two nominees' fact sheet. Will you be mentioning this under the Nobel section too - for the sake of neutrality? Finally there is not bias with Hussein's comment. If you recall, you inserted Aijaaz as reference saying the opposite of Hussein. So it is balanced. Adding 5 more quotes does not balance but create imbalance. The event is notable and the promises were made by Musharraf himself. He failed to honour this very promise. That becomes pretty relevant to his article. So it is 1-1. Both sides are stated. Kindly answer as I believe I have asked you about 6 times now, what sources do you deem "reliable and authentic" and why? You need to argue your point rather than evasion. Give a clear and concise answer rather than abstract ones. Tell me what journalists, what news reports, what news media, what paper, what organization you deed credible and then we will take it from there. I look forward to your clear answer on this matter.

PS: Also I did not say Hussein is an expert on extremism in Pakistan. Others have referred to him as such. That is where I got it from. His views are also used in news and reports in media, so no difference between the "facts" in your CNN link (quote by Musharraf which in itself is a bias as that is his own words and not fact but a POV not substantiated and you don't expect a person to be critical of his own actions or lack of, do you?) and those in Hussein's expert views which are substantiated by other similar observations. Kindly remember, Hussein is not alone in his views. You keep missing this part. You have not once commented the reports I have now referred to several times. Are these reports POV too, when quoted by other media and analysts? I think we are repeating what we have both already said. I don't see why are omitting the fact that others share the conclusions of Hussein although they do not refer to him or cite him. It is independent. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, furthermore, I feel like I have to do your work a bit. The article you stated from "find articles" is incomplete. You know this. The complete context is important always. Secondly you mention Hassan Abbas, but you failed to perhaps read through the entire article, which does not exactly speak in favour of your view. In fact it is highly critical of the relationship between US and Pakistan and let us just view what Abbas says

"More important, as Abbas argues, the Bush administration is investing heavily in a dictator who is increasingly unable to rein in the very extremists he needs to secure his political future. Not only have groups like the JUI and the jihadis in Kashmir become increasingly independent, but the regime no longer has control over critical regions such as Waziristan and Baluchistan. “This is a very dangerous strategy,” Abbas says. “There is no doubt there is going to be blowback.” While the Bush White House’s Pakistan policy is undoubtedly flawed, it is also strikingly out of character. An administration best known for its ideological rigidity has been surprisingly pragmatic and subtle in its dealings with Islamabad. The same George W. Bush who is unable to differentiate between Hamas or Hezbollah in the Middle East has been willing in Pakistan to narrowly define terrorism to exclude groups who do not directly threaten U.S. interests—even though many of them have close links to al-Qaeda."

Were you planning on including that too? Did you really read the quote you cited by Abbas?

"Hassan Abbas, author of Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism and a research fellow at Harvard University, says Musharraf has made an effort to crack down on terrorism in areas that don’t directly undermine his political base, such as the military actions against al-Qaeda in Waziristan, and Pakistan has arrested some of al-Qaeda’s prominent leaders, who “may not be number one or two, but certainly people who are up there in the hierarchy.” "

He is critical of Musharraf's efforts. Also were you going to include the following about human rights abuses by the military under Musharraf:

"Far from moving toward democracy, Musharraf is positioning himself to hold yet another round of rigged elections next year in order to stay in power until 2012. And while he may be no Saddam Hussein, Amnesty International has documented a variety of human rights abuses, including the torture and extra-judicial executions of insurgents by the Pakistani army in the ongoing civil war in Baluchistan."

And how about this:

"According to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, “Gen. Musharraf and the military hierarchy are neither extremist nor remotely fundamentalist. But they have every intention of using the fundamentalists as political allies against national political parties who question the need for military rule.”

He is basically saying that Musharraf needs to militants as political allies, which is exactly what Hussein said, That the military is inherently dependent on the militant/fundamentalist/islamic conservatives in order to stay in power. I don't know many who will bite the hand that feeds them. You brought up this article, but perhaps unknowingly of the strong critical view of the article, and pressumably you see this article as factual. Yet you left out some pretty important bits. Amnesty International is highly recognized for their work worldwide, mind you. I recommend you read it in full to see what it is actually saying. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User Peaceblissharmony, Its evident that you do not understand what is being stated by the other Mr.GeneralNeo. You do not wish to hear beyond your stated version, as you seem to think your point of view is correct. Are you Zahid Hussein himself? Zahid Hussein is not a yard-stick to measure 'neautrality and reliability'. You seem to keep asserting Zahid Hussein as if he's a holy book and his analysis should be held as final verdicts. Zahid Hussein's commentary on TV channels are as biased as his personality. Do you really consider people like him, Irfan Siddiqui, Ansar Abbasi or Professor Hoodboy as neutral?

You keep asking the other person, as to what being neutral or reliable is? When you yourself seem to be confused and consider personal annotations as the final unchallenged truth, insisting to keep it there. What is neutral and reliable in your eyes??? Can you explain it??? You have not once appreciated the concrete steps taken by Mr.Musharraf as reality and understandable. He BANNED those militant organizations, he was being considered for Nobel Prize for his actions against extremism and you still wish to remain in DISBELIEVE and SELF DENIAL? Its you who is at fault to understand and you also are no authority to judge other persons explanations. I'm surprised that you are being allowed to revert changes unnecessarily!

Why don't you subscribe and read the full article at 'Find Articles'? Don't you get the summary by reading whatever is available?

If Hussein is not alone in his views with respect to extremism....he's equally contradicted by the several links that have been pasted above for references, which you keep skipping due to favoritism?

What is wrong with the opinion of Mr.Hassan Abbas, author of "Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism" and a research fellow at Harvard University? He is more balanced than Zahid Hussein. Zahid Hussein doesn't even have a Wikipedia page to his credit. That's his face value. Why don't you create a Wikipedia page on him and post all his rubbish ideologies there? You are wasting the time of all those who refer to the Wikipedia as a source of valid information. Your evident defense of Zahid Hussein, is an indication that you are related to him. Think neutral Mr. Peace! FaithUnity (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User FaithUnity, it is strange and amusing, that your user id is so similar to mine, but this makes sense, as you have created yourself as a user for the sole reason of derailing this discussion with personal attacks. Clearly an indication of the fact that you have no useful reasoning which you can apply when arguing your case.

Your concerns have been addressed in full in my replies datd yesterday. If you have problem reading or you deliberately failed to read, then that is not my problem. I am not going to repeat but the conclusions is this:

When a person states in their edit summary that the cited source "is not an authentic or reliable judge of Musharraf" then the burden of proving that is on that person. Not me. Or else one can not submit such a summary edit and remove such a source.

Secondly I am not going to pay and subscribe to an article supplied by somebody else to prove their matter, when the burden of proof is on them to prove their point. Perhaps one can find another source, which does not require payment. Alternatively you can pay for the article.

Briefly: Hussein does not stand alone. Independent organizations have made the same observations as he has (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/3_35.htm), so something tells me he is not as unreliable or bad a judge as you think. (You might want to read the article with Abbas, because it is not exactly in favour of Musharraf or his ties with the US/Bush government rather than cut out of selective quotes which you think favour your case. I think you should read my previous comments instead of parroting the already answered questions.

The reason for the removal was explained already as both sides of the problem are covered. Let me spell it out for you: '''One side is covered by the Hussein link. One side is covered by Aijaaz''' (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DH20Df07.html). So there is no need to add 5 quotes to support what Aijaaz is essentially saying.

Regarding Nobel Peace prize nomination I have replied to that above and also quote a link from atimes, which shows the more critical approach to his nomination http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FA27Df03.html - this should be added for balance.

His alleged ban, yes alleged is also the issue raised by many critics. His alleged vows throughout his terms have not been fulfilled. That is the issue. Because Musharraf claims something does not mean it is fact. That is his POV and I do not know of any politicians who will readily reveal lack of action or criticize themselves.

Save your and my time, read what has been written. You are wasting both your own time and mine and I really have no time for the likes of you. You are here only to harrass and that might I add, is not acceptable behaviour. You want to push a POV (pro Musharraf, calling Hussein's assertions rubbish, cherry-picking quotes to suit your purpose blissfully omitting context, logic and critical views). Maybe you should make a website dedicated to Musharraf, but on wiki neutrality is the issue. An issue you are willing to override by advocating an overflow of already stated view. If you can not voice your concerns in a rational manner without asking other editors if they are related to the source person, then your comments will not be taken seriously. This is an article under discussion. Not a place where you can share your conspiracy theories. Or perhaps I should ask - to follow your "logic" if you are related to Musharraf. Are you? And this is the first time I have heard that a person needs to have an article before they can be used as a source. Some people have articles on here but some do not. That is besides the point. I also do not know of Irfan Siddiqui, Ansar Abbasi or Professor Hoodboy.

I am not in disbelief (noun) (not disbelieve = verb) or denial (omit the "self" = redundant). But you might want to ask yourself that. I am simply trying to keep the article neutral. I am not related to any source, government or such. I am just an editor. I am as good a judge of unsupported claims made with (lack of) explanations which makes no sense, as the next. If you claim something, you need to back that up. So far that has not happened prompting me to repeat my questions. This will continue as that part of discussion anywhere on wikipedia. Unity has never been achieved by attacking others. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User Peaceharmony,

Keep your arguments with the other Mr.GeneralNeo one. You do not have to amuse yourself that your ID resembles mines. I do not have that much spare time to think over such non-issue subjects. Seems you are too free.

Have you explained what is authentic and neutral??? You haven't answered my question, have you? Just because you think Mr.Zahid Hussein is nuetral doe snot mean we all have to think that way.

As for your assertion that one view of Zahid is included and one of Aijazz, than why don't you balance them fairly even further??? By balancing and 5 lines for Zahid and 5 lines for Aijazz? Now that's what I call fair! Right now it seems that 7 lines are allowed for Zahid's covergae and only 2 for Aijazz! What say???

Pro-Musharraf? Just becasue you are Anti-Musharraf doesn't make others Pro. Your inclusion of 'Women Bill' on another Wikipedia page, is as against Musharraf and Zia-ul-Haq as this one here. By the way, I love Sheikh Rasheed. He's the real democrat.

Atleast you accept and write, "Because Musharraf claims something does not mean it is fact. That is his POV...." Means you do NOT have any difinition for "POV" - do you??? What is POV in your view, I ask you??? Don't avoid this question!

I am also saying the same, "Just because Zahid claims something does not mean it is a fact. That is his POV...."

I find your views are as biased as Zahid Hussein. Its good you have time to check spellings and grammer...that's the quality free past timers have :) and honestly I am not that free. Peace cannot be achieved by stuffing your views on others. You can continue your tilted arguments with whatever General above.

Your unnecessary inclusions, on any page, will make wikipedia boring for new comers like me. FaithUnity (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User FaithUnity,

I thought I was talking to GeneralNeo.Anyways of course you have the time and you must "too free" to sock puppet and make your nickname inspired by mine. It is a shame that you have to go down that path in order to criticize.

You haven't asked me anything which was not answered already. Why don't read what has been written rather than focusing on the name "zahid hussein". The guy is clearly not alone as previously mentioned about only a dozen times now. Other independent people/organizations agree with that conclusion, therefore it is not a POV by one individual. I have posted the links for your view and more are available.

Also the comparison of lines in one quote versus another quote is ridiculous. I find your views biased and clearly POV pushing and that is essentially what you are here for. Your nickname, your rants and your personal attacks show that. If you feel dissatisfied, then try logic. I am not the "stuffing" me views on others. You are.

I do not have to explain or answer to what is "authentic or neutral or reliable"!! Why? Because I was not the one who used this in my edit summary to remove something was critical of Musharraf. GN did and on that basis I am entitled to ask what he or you mean. I am not anti-Musharraf or pro. In fact not active in politics whatsoever. The personal attacks will get your nowhere but serve as mere feeble attempt to shout and POV push. I was not aware spell check and grammer was a crime as that is part of editing. I guess some of us are just into constructive editing, and some like you, are here to battle and POV push pushing and sock puppeting. You and I both know your venture into this disussion page is anything but coincidental. I don't have time for you. Happy trolling :) Peaceblissharmony (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User Peacebliss,

I would suggest that you bring in administrators into this, as I think, basically they are the ones who can trace best, sock puppets here. I feel sorry to point out, but it's typical of you guys, when you start losing any argument, you blame them for sock puppet :) Maybe that's the best you can do? Accusing me of Sock Puppet isn't it a personal attack???

No, maybe my nickname is inspired by the 'Three Swords' that stand in Clifton in Pakistan, and they spell "Unity, Faith and Discipline". A slogan by the Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Do you live in Pakistan or are you an Indian, accusing Pakistani leaders of promoting extremism, using Zahid Hussein as an excuse?

If you consider anyone who tries to point out your evident bias, as personal attacks, I have only my condolences to offer. POV pushing? Aren't you the one who is pushing Zahid Hussein's POV, presenting it as a yard-stick to measure the final verdict? Hey man, he ain't no holy book! Come out of SELF DENIAL and DISBELIEVE, as Zahid has been contradicted in numerous versions above.

Presto! You can't explain what 'neutral or reliable' is? But you have contineously included Zahid's personal opinion as a fact, several times and guess what? You can't explain what 'neutral or reliable' basically is your eyes? Cheesy ain't it? I want you to define how anyone's personal commentary or article, can be considered as something 'neutral or reliable' - when there were 5 others quoted above that challenge that one verdict? I want you to define 'neutral and reliable' and the yard-stick to measure it?! Sorry to point out, people like you, who keep adding irrelevent views, analysis and personal notions on wikipedia - are not helping these projects!

Man, I am here to stay.... so happy trolling to you ;)Next time, do not accuse others of Sock Puppet, if you do not have evidence! FaithUnity (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User FaithUn,

But of course you are here to stay, I already told you that (afterall you went through all the trouble of making more accounts), but then why are you criticizing my editing? Wikipedia editors (gasp!) edit. So you have a problem with editing calling it being "too free" and "free past timers" clearly meant in a condenscending way. But clearly by your own definition are too free and free past timer and add to that sock puppet.

I am not losing any argument, don't worry. You are, which is why, you resort to wild conspiracy theories and personal attacks (indian againt pakistan rhetoric, alleged links to Hussein (you really are obsessed with the guy - my condolences) and anti-Musharraf) none of which you can prove. You are doing yourself no favours. I await your evidence, seeing as you instigated personal attacks repeatedly, but I have yet to see a shred of proof.

I am not sure if you are blind or deliberately not reading what I wrote: '''This issue is not about Hussein. This is about the fact that the observations he made, others have made too. I have put up the link but everything you ignore and refuse to incorporate into your preconcieved notions. And for the umpteenth time I do NOT have to define what is authentic or reliable as I did not bring up that problem. GN/YOU did. Hence the burden of proof is on you. Not me.'''

Feel free to address and then I may share what I think. So why don't you start beating around the bush, parrotting the same nonsense. Seeing as you are the one with the problem, then you should call on administration. Nobody is stopping you. The fact that you are evading simple questions and POV pushing under several new nicks finding your way coincidentally to this discussion, mimicking GN, shows your intentions.

So why dont you/GN define what you believe are "authentic and reliable" sources. Should be a piece of cake. I think it is rich with lecture on accusations coming from you, when you are an avid user of baseless accusations. You are quick to assume that anybody who disagrees with you, must be anti something. That says it all.

POV pushing trolls like yourself are not helping the project of wikipedia. The flaws i.e. with your repeated wish to add 5 quotes when one is already present thus creating an obvious bias and unbalance have been explained. I really can not be bothered with repeating what I have already said. You are the one with the explanatory problem. I have already gone through all the links and pointed out the problem. You have evaded that instead focusing on me as a person, who you do not know. Infantile and absurd at best. Happy continued trolling. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peaceblissharmony and FaithUnity, I'm actually surprised to see that this debate even went this far, when non of you can actually claim and define what 'neutral or reliable' is, without avoiding the question and heaping it upon the other? POV are never facts. They are personal views and may contradict facts on ground, which was my argument from point one. Further,no one has the authority to decide whose views should be included and whose should be rejected, without turning Wikipedia into a battle ground. Particularly, it's sad to see you both accusing each other of trolling and of using alternative accounts i.e Sock Puppet We do not have the authority to judge people and I believe the discussions must remain professional. Can both of you verify who actually is a sock puppet? I particularly put this question to Peaceblissharmony, as he was the one who pushed this accusation first. Peacebliss, can you prove in any way that Faith Unity is sock puppet? We can take the matter to the administrators of Wikipedia, if you have any fair assessment?

P.S: Peaceblissharmony, kindly, do not confuse me as FaithUnity. I consider it offensive. GeneralNeo (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNeo, Good God, I am surprised that you are asking me to define what "'neutral or reliable" sources are, when in fact you were the one who injected this into the discussion by stating in your edit summary the following "Zahid Hussein is no authentic source to judge the Presidents actions regarding elimination of extremism". Is this not your edit summary? These are you words, your claims, so you need to elaboaret when I or any other editor asks, you what you then define as authentic or reliable. Turning the question to me is ridiculous and I do find this dicussion has gotten sidetracked. You have ignored my repeated question asking you why you won't define, what you see as authentic/reliable seeing as you clearly do not trust Hussein to be that. Simply question. Yet several days and multiple repeated questions later, no answer. This can only mean one thing - you have no explanation, which makes your edit summary reason questionable.

This evasion of yours and the fact that you ask me to explain your reason in your edit summary or elsewhere. That makes no sense. Why are you asking me? This is turning into a game and I am not into that. When you write something, then you need to back it up. I also take this is as offensive when you evade a clear cut question phrased in understandable English. This is a discussion page and so far I have not seen a shred of evidence as to why the article should become a collection of one sided (biased) quotes, while the opposite veiw remains limited to one quote. Secondly I have not heard from as to what you deem "authentic and reliable". Your words, your explanation. Kindly, don't pin this on me. One recent example, you included a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. The reference is laced with glorification of Musharraf. Ok. But then you do not comment on the link I posted which first of all tells us that the nomination was regarding the Pakistan/Indian relations and is critical of whether both, Vajpayee and Musharraf, deserve such a nomination considering their fact sheet. I asked if you would include that too. Will you? No answer. I also pointed out to your several reports by independent organization supporting the view that during his time Musharraf did not live up to his initial promises. Instead you are still stuck at Hussein who is not alone in his assessment. In fact I have spent time going through each of your links, reading the artiles in full, commenting on everything, asking you questions, which to date remain unanswered. And now you ask me to explain your edit summary. If this is a "professional" approach to a discussion then things look bleek. I am tired of repeating myself and these mind games.

If you feel you want to take this to administration, nobody is stopping you. In fact I suggested that to you. You keep copy pasting the same links, and I am very doubtful that you have even read my links (or even your own links in full), or comments which clearly point out explicit problems with your usage of such references and the failure to include the context. Just like me repeated one question you have ignored that too. That is also considered offensive as it does not show any serious commitment to engage in a discussion. The burden of proof is on you. And I am still awaiting a crystal clear without evasion answer from you. Look forward to it. Until this is resolved this is not moving any further no matter how many times the same links are copy/pasted.

I also find it offensive when I am personally attacked as being a anti-Musharraf, anti-Pakistan, an Indian (considering the fact Indian is being used in a bad manner, considering the usual Pak/Ind conflicts and conspiracy theories. Funny however is that you do not ask for any evidence nor answers regarding these repeated wild, offensive and absurd acusations who serve one thing only: Sidetracking the issue. I find that offensive and strange.

This discussion will go nowhere until you offer some answers to questions I asked first (I noticed you attached importance to who asks first, so now is the time to back that up with some answers). The comments are posted in my past comments and above. Do answer. This would be professional. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)