Jump to content

Talk:Imran Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Former good article nomineeImran Khan was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    June 7, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
    In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 29, 2018, and February 1, 2024.

    Jail Campaigning vs Allegations of political motives

    [edit]

    @SheriffIsInTown How is Jail Campaigning NPOV? He is politically campaigning from jail, that is a fact, simple. Titan2456 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Titan2456 He did not campaign from jail; this is a misconception. Instead, his supporters and party members, including Gohar Ali Khan, campaigned for him during the past election, while the campaign for the chancellorship is currently ongoing from outside Pakistan. Additionally, the section heading should accurately reflect the content, which largely consists of allegations regarding the political motivations behind his imprisonment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gohar and his party contested in elections, I am talking about campaigned, Imran Khan is campaigning as chancellor, for democracy, rule of law and certain anti-army viewpoints from jail, that is a fact. The content entirely talks about how Khan is still active in campaigning from jail. Campaigning is used in the term of being politically active, which the section solely talks about. Titan2456 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoid making general statements; he did not actively campaign for anything. Please specify from the sources how he engaged in campaigning or promoted his candidacy. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Campaign Definition: an organized course of action to achieve a goal. Imran Khan has been campaigning for rule of law and democracy, that is what campaign means, all the statements he gives, the rallies he organizes, the interviews, he is campaigning. Titan2456 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are your claims; he did not campaign for anything. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:IDHT I just gave you the definition of campaign. Read here: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-imran-khan-is-campaigning-jail-pakistan-ai-covert-canvassing-2024-02-05/ Its Reuters, not an opinion piece like the one you cited. Titan2456 (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why did you cite an opinion piece and use NPOV language when you corrected my NPOV language previously? Titan2456 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once more, this is a general assertion. Please specify particular issues, and I will respond accordingly. The opinion piece reflects Imran Khan’s views and statements he has actually made. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot use an opinion piece as a citation, that is the bottom line for Wikipedia. If you want to, write that it is an opinion piece and write that all the info is sourced from that. Titan2456 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I have already corrected it, why are you citing an opinion piece as information in the first place though? Titan2456 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not make corrections; instead, you reverted the streamlined version of the content entirely, which I do not agree with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean streamlines you literally removed all indication that its an opinion piece? Also why did you select the most negative anti-Imran Khan one, there are so many more like these, can they be used according to you?
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/imran-khan-oxford-university-next-chancellor
    https://zeteo.com/p/why-imran-khan-should-be-the-next Titan2456 (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you double-checked your revert diff? You didn’t just restore the attribution—you reverted the streamlined version. Your question about choosing the most negative perspective is illogical. Why do you consistently choose the most positive angles for PTI and Imran Khan and never balance it with contrary views to maintain neutrality? I am simply correcting the one-sided narrative, which came across as a chancellorship campaign, portraying him as suffering and still fighting and campaigning from jail. Why didn’t you include the opposing perspective from the start so I wouldn’t have had to step in? Why do you always behave as if you’re working for them? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are these assumptions? Campaigning isn't even a positive or negative word, and you didn't correct a one-sided narrative, you cited an OPINION PIECE. When did I portray him as suffering? this is another baseless assumption. Titan2456 (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoid making assumptions about others if you don’t want assumptions to be made in return. Opinion pieces are permissible as long as they are supported by other sources and it can be demonstrated that he actually made those statements about Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and rape victims. The opinion piece is merely referencing his own statements. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you used words like "widely raised concerns" or "widely condemned" when it was only Catherine Bennet who wrote that, I have not removed the opinion piece entirely but I have made it neutral like the rest of the article removing NPOV or claims that it was 'widely viewed' to 'she viewed'. If you do not have a response to the "Jail Campaigning" title then I will change it back. Titan2456 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you bother to check your edit diff to see what you changed? For section heading, I might be willing to step back a bit in favor of "2024 election campaign" instead of your preferred one until I review all the sources in that section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section talks about his campaigning for democracy/rule of law, not the 2024 elections. The non-streamlined version is better, but that we can discuss, Titan2456 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can modify it to “Campaign from jail” for the time being. Why are you removing the final paragraph, which sums up the reasons he is not a suitable candidate? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is completely opinionated and sourced from the opinion article. There are many articles explaining how he is a good candidate and many that explain he is a bad, I would suggest keeping one short paragraph per opinion Titan2456 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titan2456 You can’t continue adding content while I’m making an effort to hold back. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, what do you want changed about how the article is right now. Titan2456 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SheriffIsInTown I cannot find a mention of personal ambition by Khan in the 3 citations you gave in your recent edit, can you copy-paste the text from the citations talking about his personal ambitions and self-interest for verification. Titan2456 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the changes, you can restore your info about why he is a bad pick according to Catherine Bennet as long as you maintain it is her opinion. Titan2456 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that source cannot be used, you can bring it to WP:RSN. I’m quite sure we can use it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the statement about "ambition and self-interest" before I saw this discussion. Neither of the 3 sources mention these terms in relation to Khan's term in gaol. One source was published before he went to gaol, another was published just after he went to gaol and does not mention his actions while in gaol. The third source (the BBC) does mention what could be interpreted as "ambition and self-interest" but is talking about the views of his opponents, not critics, and is discussing his time while in office, not while in gaol. Burrobert (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @SheriffIsInTown if this is the case why are you adding it? Titan2456 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SheriffIsInTown why did you add the statement of self-interest when the citations didn’t verify it? Titan2456 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such an attitude is completely unacceptable for someone considering becoming an admin here. How can anyone expect the community to support someone’s bid to become an admin while using fake references to promote propaganda on a crucial BLP? @SheriffIsInTown: I suggest that you revert your edits if you haven't done so already because our admins are held in very high regard, and we do not expect such editing behaviour from them. I’d be willing to support your admin nom, but only if you stop your biased POV editing that’s been occurring on many pages, including 2024 Pakistani general election.Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a bit of an oversight on my part. My modification was based on a source discussing his political struggle, which confirms, as stated by Burroburt, that his time in government can be interpreted as motivated by personal ambition and self-interest. While it did not fit the specific section, it was relevant to the article as a whole. Section headings can sometimes be misleading, but that does not mean the content about the person was untrue or unsupported by the source. That being said, I accepted the correction from Burroburt, and that should have been the end of it instead of both of you continuing to beat the dead horse. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SheriffIsInTown, Yes, you realised it was an oversight after @Burrobert: had to intervene. By the way, this isn’t the only instance, and I’m not trying to beat the dead horse, but I just want to remind you that admins are not expected to engage in this kind of POV editing behavior.Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WSJ source

    [edit]

    I don't have access to Murdoch's Wall St Journal. It is being used here to say that Khan told the Supreme Court that Pakistan is under what he describes as an "undeclared martial law". The limited access I have to the WSJ shows the following text:

    Former Pakistan Leader Imran Khan Says Country Is Under ‘Undeclared Martial Law’
    Khan, effectively under house arrest, says democratic progress is in jeopardy as country teeters on brink of default
    Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan—effectively held under house arrest by the army-backed government - said his country was under an "undeclared martial law".
    In an interview from his police-ringed home in the eastern Pakistani city ...
    

    Can someone who has access copy and paste the relevant section of the article here please? My limited access seems to indicate he may have made the statement in an interview from home, but, on the other hand, perhaps not. It seems an odd thing to say to the Supreme Court. Anyway, if the WSJ does confirm the statement was made to the Supreme Court, we should replace the wording "While he was brought before the highest court of the country by the jail authorities ..." with something like "In a statement to the Supreme Court, ... ". Burrobert (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Burrobert You can check either of the two sources to gather information. If access to one is restricted, the other can serve as an alternative. Both sources should provide the necessary details. Obviously he made the statement to someone, the other source states SCP, he could not have just yelled out the window? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I didn't notice the second source, which does support the current wording. From the small part that I could see of the WSJ source, it seemed that the statement was made in a telephone interview, not by yelling out the window. Anyway, we should just say he made the statement to the Supreme Court. Burrobert (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevance?

    [edit]

    What is the relevance of the following sentence to Imran's bio? If there is some connection, it needs to be better explained using a source which makes the connection.

    Her personal secretary, Noor Zaman, alleged that she had met with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and Amir Muqam several times, along with her father. Zaman does not specify the timing of these meetings. Burrobert (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    

    POV tag

    [edit]

    @SheriffIsInTown might I remind you that you approved the premiership section before it was put on the article and called it "copacetic" here Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 5#Prime Ministership Article. What is the use of this POV tag? Titan2456 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay for an initial write-up but there is always room for improvement. It should be improved with neutral point of view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly, it is nominated for GA right now and the POV tag would immediately bypass it. Titan2456 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you nominate it for GA? I don’t think it’s ready. There’s too much POV, not just in this section but in other areas as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly? Nawaz Sharif’s, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s, they all include the government’s achievements and tenure, not criticisms, that too this is a summary not the full article. The section mentions how the government faced financial problems which led to an IMF loan and even says it faced criticisms for policies and comments. If you are saying this section includes POV then basically all other articles do, you said it was good and approved it, but now are reversing your statement? I do not understand what POV you mean, all other articles follow this level of wording all prime ministers and political parties.
    For example:
    Pakistan Muslim League (N): It says “PML-N struck its remarkable, biggest, and most notable achievement in the 1997 parliamentary election”, this is POV and the section does not mention any allegations of rigging despite Dawn deeming it the most rigged election in Pakistan’s history. This section not flagged for POV but PTI’s Imran Khan government section which has no POV does?
    I know you will say “free feel to add POV tags to those pages” but this is a clear editing pattern of demoting PTI-related pages. I have tried to WP:AGF with you but the editing pattern is to clear in trying to demote PTI. Titan2456 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you argue over everything? Do you think you own all articles related to PTI? What do you mean by saying you’ve “tried to AGF” with me? How is that relevant to me? Focus on addressing the issues, not the editor—if you can’t, then allow someone else to handle it when they can. Remember, you’re not the owner of these articles, so let the tag remain if you can’t resolve the issues. Also, why do you keep referencing other articles? Those aren’t infallible either and can be improved as well. Anytime anyone makes changes to a PTI-related article, you start arguing over it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing this is a discussion. I have remained WP:CIVIL always in discussions in response to you. Anyways forget about this and lets focus on removing the template. What is POV in this page, it already says criticisms, copy and paste all the sentences you believe are POV. Titan2456 (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned on the other talk page, the entire section reflects a POV and needs a more neutral perspective. It currently presents a one-sided view, making it resemble a fanpage. To balance it, the opposing perspective should be included. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I require you to be more specific, give examples of POV sentences, and what in specific should be added Titan2456 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been reports which indicated that during his tenure, he largely depended on military support to gather votes for legislative matters. He also faces multiple corruption allegations, for which he is currently being tried in several cases. Journalists were reportedly targeted, and their shows were blacked out if they criticised his government. Opposition leaders were allegedly framed in fabricated cases, including one against Rana Sanaullah, among others. Additionally, it’s necessary to include the country’s corruption index ranking at the start and end of his tenure, as well as an economic comparison from when he took office to when he left. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]