Talk:Pervez Musharraf

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): South Asian military history task force

Archives
Untitled Archive 1 Archive 2

No conclusive or persuasive evidence that Musharraf was involved in nuclear proliferation

This article states that " Musharraf has denied knowledge of or participation by Pakistan's government or army in this proliferation." but then goes on on to say that that there is evidence to the contrary. It cites 4 links. But none of these links provide evidence that is persuasive or conclusive. Here are my comments on these links:

• [1] (http://spot.pcc.edu/~rwolf/nkorea_pak_nuke.htm)

NYT article dated November 24, 2002. This was well before the extent and independence of A.Q.Khan's rogue proliferation activities became known (in 2004.) North Korea had indeed received Pakistani nuclear technology, but not from the Pakistani government. Even in that NYT article, it says,

"Intelligence officials say they have seen no evidence of exchanges since Washington protested the July missile shipment. Even in that incident, they cannot determine if the C-130 that picked up missile parts in North Korea brought nuclear-related goods to North Korea.

But American and Asian officials are far from certain that Pakistan has cut off the relationship, or even whether General Musharraf is in control of the transactions. [emphasis mine]

• [2](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43573-2002Nov26&notFound=true,)

WaPo article date November 27, 2002, titled "Defector From N. Korea Creating a Stir in Japan." The defector claimed that Pakistan provided nuclear technology to North Korea. But again, the question - whether it was A. Q. Khan's organisation or the government of Pakistan - is not resolved. And the Japanese Foreign Ministry

"say his more sensational claims also cannot be proved -- and could complicate delicate diplomacy with North Korea.

"We just don't know for sure" about Aoyama, insisted a high-ranking official.

• [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/2339663.stm)

BBC news article dated 18 October, 2002. Again, this is before they found out that A.Q.Khan had been running a rogue operation.

"The Americans said that North Korea was trying to obtain large quantities of high-strength aluminium for centrifuges that are used to enrich uranium to provide bomb-making material.

"The Americans suspect that Pakistan has given North Korea critical help here - perhaps even the gas centrifuges themselves." As it turned out, A. Q. Khan did sell the centrifuges or parts thereof to N.Korea, but the parts were made in Malaysia and other places. This link is not relevant to the question of whether Musharraf knew about the provision of nuclear technology to N. Korea

• [4] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/2/132757.shtml))

An article dated June 4, 2003. Another article that predates the revelations of the extent of A.Q.Khan's rogue network. By this time, it had become widely known that N.Korea had Pakistani uranium-enrichment technology. It had naturally been assumed that the government was involved. As it turned out, though, the nuclear technology that N.Korea had was provided by A.Q.Khan.

Common elements here are that (1) the links are old. (2)They mention North Korea's provision of missile technologies to Pakistan, which is not disputed. (3) They incorrectly point to N. Korean possession of Pakistani nuclear technology as evidence that the Pakistani government was involved, when in the evidence now available points to A. Q. Khan's independent nuclear-supply network, which operated almost exclusively outside of Pakistan. For this reason, I feel justified in removing these links.

Minor edits

1947 or 1943? It is written in his book that he was 4 years and 3 days old. That makes it 1943.
In "Early life", there is: ..."media management from Delhi university.[9]He is said to have"... -> There should be a space between "[9]" and "He".
Please change the heading of Prime Minister to Chief Executive. In the box it uses the title of Prime minister for the time period of 12 October 1999 – 21 November 2002. He actually used the title of Chief Executive before taking over the role of President. He never officially used the title of Prime Minister ever in his career. I am attaching a link for the reference.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/06/20/musharraf.biog/

Further development on this page

• Major copy-editing is needed. Extensive pro-Musharraf bias in the old content in this article.
• The Presidency, Fall from Presidency, and Post-Presidency is very painful to read. The material has arbitrary information. Anything that relates to domestic politics is very bogus. The woman's rights section is a mess.
• This article uses very unreliable sources. The sources do not correlate to the actual facts in the article. Some sources are dead.
• The referencing needs to be improved.
• Missing content on:
  • Constitution re-write up
  • March 2000 Bill Clinton visit
  • Relationship with the United States and Pakistan's entanglement in the War on Terror
  • December 2001 Indian Parliament attacks
  • 2002 India-Pakistan standoff
  • 2004 Pakistan-India peace talks
  • 2004 refusal to retire as Army general
  • 2005 Pakistan earthquake
  • Failed Bhutto-Musharraf power sharing deal
  • Musharraf's views on Obama
  • 2011 United States tour
  • much more...

Reformation32 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems With the Social Networks entry

The social networks entry was written in what appeared to be broken English. It it is overly pro-Musharraf and seems more like public relations than something you would expect to find in a Wikipedia article. There is a citation for the entry regarding Musharraf's Facebook page which links to what appears to be a public relations website (Musharraf.org). The website Musharraf.org describes Musharraf as being "A Website Dedicated to the Father of Modern Pakistan the President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf. The Greatest Leader Pakistan has ever Seen". In the Social Networks section there is also a link to his facebook page which strikes me as not being appropriate. I will remove it.

I do not believe that his wikipedia page warrants a specific entry for social networks. I would appreciate some input as to whether my concerns are founded or unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KioEstas (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Update

On the 5th of November I shared my concerns regarding the social networking entry. Since no one objected I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KioEstas (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I LOVE

I LOVE YOU SYED PERVEZ MUSHARRAF I LIKE IT OK BOSS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.185.244 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)