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