Talk:Pakistan's military ruler sacks Chief Justice
1) Dictator...last I checked he is not a dictator. 2) unprecedented 3) [3rd paragraph] ....strong reputation world over... 4) This article is 100% against Musharraf and states a POV only that of a side that does not like him. DragonFire1024 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
2) When an elected government is over thrown and a military General takes rule of a republic and calls himself President General . . . you do not have to like it or not like it - he is a dictator and that is a fact. Unprecedent - because no onther Chief Justice has been refrenced against prior to this and the president in any country specially a republic does not have a auhtority to replace a CHIEF JUSTICE. Strong reputation . . . read The News and BBC reference and office statement of Justice Qayyum.
- If it is a quote then quote him. If its not a quote then it is your personal POV of the situation. Please see: NPOV. You said it yourself, President General. that does NOT mean dictator. He is a president not a ruler. Apparently they do have the authority...beause they did it. DragonFire1024 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
3) A Dictator is a Dictator and a dictator needs no authority . . . a military ruler = dictator period - as for world over please read Source articles, more sources to come shortly as the news develops.
- World over is the POV of the author who wrote the article, something we do not allow on Wikinews. He is not a dictator and any reference to him being one will be removed. I know many people think George Bush is a dictator, but he is not. DragonFire1024 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am suprised that a simple news snippet has turned into a political debate of weather a military ruler who over threw an elected government is a dictator or not. But for the sake of compromise I will agree to that he be reffered to as Pakistan's military ruler as it is something BBC, CNN, and all Local Newspaper reffer him to as.
Pakistan's Military ruler sacks Chief Justice - I think this would be a fair nutral trade off - anyone wanting to think of him as a dictator can do so on his or her own account - while the statement would reflect honesty as well.
"World Over" if AP, Reuter, and BBC report an individual as an upright person then I would think he is preceived as "world over" this is to extent I beleive a double standard - on one side all papers reffering mushraf as military ruler - a dictator - can not be acceptable on the same account.
--Impala 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry trying to get the hang of this thing and at the same time fighting of the boxed opinion of my own people that if you criticize your own country or ruler you are a traitor. --Impala 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- i take it that npov concerns have been addressed. there are a couple of unsourced statements, though - the Hafiz Hussain quote and Justice Qayyum's "unprecedented" quote (rest of the quote is sourced). let's see if ew can fix this and publish this quickly. — Doldrums(talk) 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have also found all other sources as well online - here I want to find out the policy as well - We are taking about a country of 170 million people where only 10% population is really trully educated and only 3% knows english - most of the news is in URDU (national langauage) in print and on news channels - how can that be reffrenced and quoted.--Impala 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Impala, please provide one or two links in the 'Source' section on the article to URDA language sources you mention that support the quote(s). With that done, I would support publishing this. Fact checking could follow, and a correction issued if there are problems. -Edbrown05 09:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)