Talk:Pervez Musharraf

Archives
Archive 1 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)

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.

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)

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:

• [1] - 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.

• [2] - 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.

• [3] - 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)

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

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)

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.

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)

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. 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.

Conflicting Birthdates

1947 or 1943? It is written in his book that he was 4 years and 3 days old. That makes it 1943.

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.

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)

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.

"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.

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 Wikipedia: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)

Mush, a nickname for Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf

The Mush dab page has this line:

• Mush, a nickname for Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf

Google search results show that this usage is very common. However, the article does not mention it. --Jtir 18:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sources

Why is it that most of the sources of this article are from Indian based media such as Times of India etc?. Indian sources will obviously be not neutral. Readers: Caution!

≈ Derek Pringle Derekp 243 07:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Derek Pringle Does anyone check the sources for various claims and "facts" in this article. For example, the link which is supposed to support the fact that Musharraf had religious leaders arrested for saying he was Qadiani is actually a news item which says 11 religious leaders were arrested for preaching that the religion column should be kept in Pakistani passports and that Musharraf is too kind to Qadianis. It has nothing to do with Musharraf allegedly being one or anything of that nature. Also, the claims made about Pakistan's losses in the 1965 war are not in the sources given. I have not seen many neutral article yet dealing with Pakistan, it seems like many of them get loaded with opinions coming from rediff.com and other Indian news sites. Let's try to only use neutral sources and keep agendas out of this. Fkh82 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re the '65 war issue, the sources aren't from rediff or any Indian news site but from Pakistani newspapers/websites and other renowned international publications. Atleast try reading them before cribbing here. --Idleguy 01:31, 26 May 2007 (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".[4] 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.

This is the reason Transparency International itself had to say that reports of President Musharraf’s government being more corrupt than the governments of Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif “are absolutely incorrect because they are based on a totally erroneous reading of the TI Survey”.

Now face this statement from a politically neutral institution who was the original source of information.

Face it and do not pollute the article by quoting politically biased media again and again.

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.[5] 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. [6]

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. BigNate37_(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? BigNate37_(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

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 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.

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)

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 N 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).

Military dictator?

Wouldn't it be more in line of impartiality to call him military leader rather than dictator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.140.136 (talk) 17:08, August 25, 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)

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)

Urdu??

Urdu?? Right now, he his presenting a speech abolishing the constitution [noon, Pacific]. Is this in Urdu??

Thank You,

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 [7]. "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)

Please correct this little typo

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".

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. --SMS ^Talk 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)