Talk:Ziauddin Butt

Multiple issues

I have tagged this article with multiple issues:

• This is a WP:BLP article yet contains little biographical information. Additional sourcing needed.
• Violates WP:LEAD. The lead section is far too long, and fails to summarize the rest of the article.
• Article needs reorganization; split up the lead.
• Compromises neutrality with peacock terms, such as "exemplary army career", "most prominent and successful", etc. Also uses disparaging terms regarding opponents ("propaganda", "lies", etc.). None of these terms are supported by reliable sources.
• Definitely a non-neutral article that seems intent on promoting the reputation of the subject; just read it.
• We have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problems (evidence) in which a representative of a public relations firm has edited this article and attempted to get the article locked in an "official version" state.
• Compromises neutrality with weasel-worded phrases such as "...and they did a great job, with random fabrications like..."
• All of the above suggest an inappropriate tone, violating WP:NPOV
• Needs to be copyedited to remove the inappropriate tone.
• Article seems unbalanced, failing to present sides in a dispute without judgment.
• It reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone.

Lots of work to do. Article could be deleted and started over, with all these problems. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The editing issues have been duly noted - Objection on tags

Your copy edit objections have been duly noted and forwarded to the author. The Mercury Consulting Group is not a PR firm but the legal arm of a law firm looking to correct libel against a non-public living person. The user Mariliisha is a researcher designated by the person himself to correct the factual wrongs that had been written about him, she is NOT an employee and MCG has not made any edits to the work. We are simply interested in ending this half a decade long facility of libel against said person and will fully explore legal options to do so. It is interesting that in a 7 year permutation of this page no editor had tagged the libel filled versions as being slanderous or devoid of references, however as soon as the wrongs have been righted there are objections on the "neutrality" of the topic. Please review linked articles and references before making such a statement, the videos linked through alone prove the veracity of the version as presented. Libel against any entity no matter how permissible (apparently selectively) under any forms of website based rules or regulations can not be supported or left to exist. legal@mercuryconsultingworldwide.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCG worldwide (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect on several fronts. To be perfectly clear:

• There is no "author". You are woefully misinformed about the purpose of Wikipedia if you believe that anyone "owns" an article.
• Mariliisha has made multiple edits to this article, as can be seen clearly in the contribution history, which indicates a single purpose account. You seem to know a lot about this editor, including personal information such as gender. What is Mariliisha's association with MCG? From all appearances, there appears to be a conflict of interest.
• Mariliisha's use of the phrase "our client" in this edit suggests that Mariliisha is indeed an employee of MCG Worldwide.
• This page has not existed for 7 years. It was created in 2008.
• Making legal threats is prohibited on Wikipedia, and is a blockable offense.
• It is abundantly clear to any reader that this article is not written from a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia's official WP:NPOV policy.

As a legal entity, it behooves you to learn the rules that govern Wikipedia before participating here. Consider renaming your account, which currently violates the Wikipedia:Username policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The rules that govern Wikipedia are not the ones that govern media/print content, please refer to the point made in above communication. You assertion that Mariliisha "appears to be an employee" is a value statement that you have considered kosher for yourself but name as "peacock & weasel" words in your own critique. We have already informed you that this page has been used as a means to promote unsubstantiated claims and therefore libel against the said person and our objection is limited to that. Unless you can come up with solid evidence to the otherwise we would encourage you to spend your valuable time elsewhere and refrain from using value judgement and idle accusations. You have obviously not seen the media reference/ videos we have alluded to, or you are ill equipped to actually understand them, i.e. they are in the Urdu language. You should get an independent translation of them from a native speaker, so that you can find out that the very "opponents" you mention are conforming the content. MCG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainkh (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Digging yourself deeper and deeper, I see.

Mariliisha referred to "our client" and MCG in the same paragraph. That is not a value statement, that is a fact.

Peacock terms and weasel words are established Wikipedia editorial terminology. See WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.

You have already been informed that this page has been used to promote biased claims, in violation of Wikipedia policy about neutrality. You clearly can't be bothered to read the policies here. See WP:NPOV. Any claims must be backed up by reliable and verifiable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. This article contained an entire section of unreferenced claims, violating WP:BLP, that did nothing but promote or elevate the reputation of the subject. That section has been deleted.

Further creation of sockpuppet accounts will be blocked, per policy. Further legal threats will result in blocks also, per policy. Specific disputes about content should be discussed here on this talk page, or pursued by one of the standard dispute resolution channels. Thus far, nothing specific has been discussed on this talk page at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

moved multiple issues list here

I just pulled the following laundry list of issues from the article lede, replacing it with the generic {{Multiple issues}} box, as it seemed fairly WP:REICHSTAG-esque. Please review WP:TM/D and meet the expectations set out therein before restoring.

{{Multiple issues}} Issues previously listed:

• BLP sources = February 2011
• COI = February 2011
• lead too long = February 2011
• newsrelease = February 2011
• peacock = February 2011
• POV = February 2011
• restructure = February 2011
• sections = February 2011
• tone = February 2011
• unbalanced = February 2011
• weasel = February 2011
• copyedit = February 2011
• cleanup = February 2011}}.24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Those links relate to disputes. There are no disputes here, although each tag was described in the first section on this page as required by WP:TM/D. Everyone, including the sockpuppets in the section above, agree that the article is unbalanced, but the sockpuppets are concerned only with disparagement of the subject and nothing else. The other tags are basic maintenance.

Moving these tags to the talk page only de-categorize the article from the appropriate cleanup categories. The purpose of putting them in the article is to attract editors to the article to help clean it up. That has been accomplished for the most part by new editors who have appeared since the tagging, so the tags have served their purpose. I will restore the tags for problems that still remain.

The current problems remaining that I can see are:

• It is missing citations or footnotes. Several {{fact}} tags exist.
• This WP:BLP article needs additional references or sources for verification, particularly regarding the coup and controversy mentioned in the lead.
• The article was edited by a person with an admitted conflict of interest, as shown in the sections above.
• Sections should be added to this article, to expand on material that exists in the lead and nowhere else.

To the recent contributors: Great job! This article looks much better than it did yesterday. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is preferable that in-line templates be applied to content that is being objected to on bias or fact grounds. Inline templates are preferred because they can be attached directly to disputed sentences. Section templates follow next in preference to tagging a whole article." I find it hard to believe that, of the 13 issues you listed, none could be applied more specifically than at the article level. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not re-enable the {{multiple issues}} template on this talk page. It doesn't belong on a talk page, and no longer apply since the article has been improved, so it shouldn't be "live". Anyone can view its content by looking at the page source.

As to your comment, the point was to explain to a COI editor who requested a total lock-down of this article to freeze an "official" version in place, why such an action would be inappropriate. Yes, inline citations are preferable, and I added some later, but didn't have time until the socks were blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with what I have written, you are free to request that I change it. Refactoring other users talk page comments is inappropriate. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not when it adds article categories to a talk page. I simply delinked them according to WP:TPO. Your solution above is better than mine, though. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about Ziauddin's rank and last office held

I see there is a confusion about his last rank and designation. As from the Official record of Pakistan Army he never held the office of Chief of Army Staff. He was nominated for this position but the official procedure was never completed. The same is for his rank, simply putting rank badges is not confirmation of a rank. --SMS ^Talk 17:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Confusion about Ziauddin's rank and last office held

Thank you for this very logical approach to resolving the confusion as well as for the solid reference to the Pakistan Army site. Please bear with me and consider the following research based argument. This is a living person and we must avoid libel as much as possible. Wikipedia is an amazing project that must be improved on to present a haven for information devoid of slander or innuendo. There is however little controversy as to the completion of General Ziauddin's appointment and the elevation of his rank to a 4 star general, the competent authority at the time (the Prime Minister) made the appointment and was confirmed by the President of the country and the defense secretary issued a notification, as per the Pakistan Army Green Book (ISBN E000756) and the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Articles 58(2)(b), 46, 48(1)(6), 101, 91(4)(5), 242(1A), 243(2)(c) & 213 this completed the procedure for elevation of rank and appointment of an army chief. One must remember General Musharraf was himself appointed in the same manner. The takeover ceremony at GHQ is an honor guard attended by the Adjutant General and some nicely dressed soldiers, a remnant of your British colonial past, and does not hold any significance as per the legality of the appointments or the start of a tenure. A military coup does not take away from the legality of the appointment as per the rules of business. I understand of course that in Pakistan the rule of law in these matters is not always followed through, however even after the appointment of General Ziauddin and the subsequent coup, even with full dictatorial authority General Musharraf's goverment never issued a legal de-notification of this appointment, choosing mostly to ignore the issue. The current army website does not list the General because of the matter being sub-judice, as per the latest, Ziauddin Khawaja (Butt) has reserved the right to appeal against General Musharraf's edicts and thereby the JAG (Judge Advocate General) of the Pakistan Army is bound to hold the matter in an incomplete status.

A bit of perspective, I am in the process of compiling a book on Pakistani politics during President Musharraf's era, and this matter offered an interesting conundrum. I have over the last two years visited Pakistan and other countries several times and held interviews with several senior political and army figures of Musharraf's era as well as the man himself. Hence the detail in discussion. The issue of General Ziauddin has come up several times and I was told on record that his appointment was completed as per the constitution, however as General Musharraf abrogated the constitution issuing a provisional constitution order (PCO) in his capacity as coup leader, the constitutional appointments ceased to exist (the same argument he uses for the legality of removing the judges). I have edited this Wikipedia entry mostly because I feel the project can overall benefit greatly by upgrading current articles and profiles to include academic quality references allowing people to dissociate simple opinion, social narrative, and academic and legal certainty.

Do please discuss on this forum before resorting to changes, I am grateful for the civilized discussion as opposed to warring edits. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA POL ANALYSIS (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and Wikipedia is indeed a great project. You are right the command take over ceremony is not significant, what matters is the legal process. The actual process is (or was in 1999) nomination by Prime Minister in consultation with President and a notification by Secretary Defense who at that time was Lieutenant General (Retd) Iftikhar Ali Khan (brother of Nisar Ali Khan, a Federal Minister of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's cabinet). The first part of this legal process was completed but the Secretary defense never issued a notification. He was stopped of doing this by officials overseeing the coup. So what I think the legal process was never completed. --SMS ^Talk 09:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:

Again I do appreciate the civilized discussion on the topic. As I mentioned I have been researching on President Musharraf's rule, trying to separate the fiction from the reality. In that vein I have a number of copies of original documents, one of them is the notification of appointment of General Ziauddin, duly vetted by the President Rafiq Tarar, Prime Minister Sharif and Secretary Defense General Iftkhar Chaudhry; the MS (Military Secretary of the Pakistan Army) at the time had even issued a General Headquarters (GHQ) notification after receiving communication from the Ministry of Defense, it was in fact Lt. General (Rtd) Iftikhar Chaudhry who accompanied the prime minister at the time of this decision to replace Musharraf and forwarded the notification in the Prime Minister house to the General Headquarters (GHQ) received by the MS Branch of the Pakistan Army (POI: the secretary defense does not "approve" the decision, he just acknowledges it, as the Prime Minister is the competent authority and the President is the final authority - as per the 16th Amendment form of the Pakistan constitution that was prevalent in 1999). To end this debate I will put up a scan of the appointment letter on Wikipedia after getting permission from my source within President Musharraf's administration.

As I mentioned, there is no controversy at all over the constitutional legality of Ziauddin's appointment, not even from President Musharraf's camp, their only argument is what I had mentioned before; that since President Musharraf issued the PCO, the appointments under the constitution ceased to exist. They had some other arguments over the constitutional right of the Prime Minister, but they were only paraded in the media in the early days of the coup and were replaced by the PCO argument once the legal review of the situation was made and it was found that everything President Musharraf did landed him within the purview of Article (6) of your constitution. I have to say I am surprised there is still such controversy over this issue in the minds of people, this shows how excellent President Musharraf's media team and information policy was in promoting his regime's official stance. I think he (President Musharraf) was a genius at countering criticism through public relations, a great example is how he handled his visit to India and had the Indian press eating out of his hands, while having no intention at all to actually ink a deal, masterful political handling of media! -

This debate with you however leads me to add a chapter focusing on General Ziauddin in my book, just to ensure the people know the factual document backed truth and can differentiate from the rhetoric, giving them an opportunity to appreciate/understand the power of President Musharraf's media cells, leading to a better understanding of his 9 year rule. The matter of General Ziauddin's profile page however is not up to political opinion, as we both agree Wikipedia must be improved to reflect only facts when it comes to the personal data of personalities, regardless of their political, religious or ethnic affiliations, it is therefore unfair to make this profile a vassal for pro and anti President Musharraf opinions (I have read through the history of changes). I will upload the said appointment letter ASAP to verify the personal data and end this debate and will also add scholarly references to other data on this profile. Differing political views and opinions are extremely important for freedom of speech, but they should find their place within the Wikipedia talk pages of personalities, not their personal data. I thank you for allowing for a logical fact based exchange here, and I apologize for the lengthy answers but I figured this will hopefully help others with doubts to the same. I would like to follow it up with similar improvements to other Wikipedia profiles connected to President Musharraf's early years in power that are sparsely populated and that I have research data and non-political/non-official neutral academic references on, and if you allow, will invite your debate to those as well (Mr. Tariq Aziz, General Mahmud Ahmed, General Muzaffar Usmani, Lt. General Iftikhar Chaudhry, Lt. General Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani, Lt. General Ghulam Ahmad, General Aziz Khan, Lt. General Ali Jan Orakzai, Maj. General Rehmat, Brig. Ijaz Shah, Mr. Nisar Memon) . Thank you again.

"Wikipedia will grow beyond its current stigma's of unverified information as it matures away from a community blog and onwards to a truly collective cache of reliable, verifiable and attributable information, it is a seedling still, but promises to be a tree that shades the world" SA POL ANALYSIS (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Secretary Defense is subordinate of Prime Minister and is not the final authority but further process of promotion from one rank to another in armed forces is confirmed by Ministry of Defense (just a procedure). And as far as I know Ziauddin Butt is drawing pension for the rank of Lieutenant General and not General. But some references (we can also have your book as a reference once it is published) and as you said the copy of secretary defense letter will certainly end this issue. Also I think to keep this article Neutral a mention of Ziauddin's name not on Pakistan Army's official website be made (What do you say?). And you are welcome to improve all those articles mentioned above and also some others like 1999 Pakistani coup d'état.

Wikipedia do have unverified information but there are some featured and good class articles too and I hope you can promote the articles you mentioned to these categories. --SMS ^Talk 04:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Very logical suggestion as to the mention of his name not being on the official army site despite the general acceptance of his rank. It speaks to how much President Musharraf still holds influence in the Pakistan Army. I of course also mentioned before that since Ziuaddin has reserved the right to appeal, the matter is subjudice, providing a ready reason for the official sources as far as the name exclusion goes. I will write up a few lines for this section in a couple of days and post it here before modifying the main page, so that we can benefit from your opinion on it. Please allow for a few days. Best of regards, and thank you for this constructive debate, I am very happy at the neutral intellectual nature of this approach. SA POL ANALYSIS (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be an explanation of why he has a stage name

It's confusing Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)