Talk:Imran Khan

Relevance?

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)

POV tag

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done Titan2456 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly balanced. You’ve included promotional paragraphs, but only a few lines that might reflect negatively on him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

They are not promotional, check the citations they fully support the claims. I have already put effort into trying to follow your suggestion, paste here how much criticism of him you want in the section. Titan2456 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegation of harassment moved to time in opposition

@WikiEnthusiast1001 as per WP:CSECTION and to preserve the articles’ structure the “Allegation of Sexual Harassment” section should be moved to the “In opposition” section as it occurred in 2017, when Khan was in opposition. I will make the change of moving the info into the In opposition section myself but I am posting here to avoid an edit war or dispute. Titan2456 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this move, as the allegation has nothing to do with his being in opposition or serving as opposition leader. It simply happened to occur while he was in opposition. Therefore, I will be restoring that section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It is about his time in opposition, follow WP:CSECTION, the article’s structure would be maligned with one allegation out of place from the rest. This is just one allegation of harassment, it should be put under a section and the only one that would make sense would be In opposition, about his time in opposition. He was never opposition leader and was just an MNA during 2013-2017, if the controversy occurred in that time it should be placed there. Titan2456 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe WP:CSECTION is applicable to this content, as WP:CSECTION clearly illustrates that we should not create separate sections about controversies or criticism and include positive and negative content about the subject's role in the same section. This content differs, as it does not pertain to his role as an opposition politician, so a separate section is appropriate. If reliable sources provide any praise regarding his handling of the sexual harassment matter, we will include that praise within the same section to align with WP:CSECTION. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Titan, I support your move 100%. There is no reason why it should have it's own section as it's just one allegation. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A single allegation is significant on its own, even as much as multiple allegations would be. It is unrelated to his role in opposition and has no connection to him being an opposition politician at the time when it happened. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does, he was an opposition MNA while the allegation came out, that is not how section headings work. You are missing the point entirely. Titan2456 (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Not quite; you’re both missing the point here. It seems you both have been trying to downplay or conceal any critical information about PTI figures, and this appears to be another attempt to bury that information within a broader section. If you’re using WP:CSECTION as a justification for this, why not apply it to the “Wealth” and “Public image” sections too, so that their content is split into other main sections? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Address the point brought up prior

Accuse both editors of bias

Sheriff, this is another example of WP:IDHT by you, there is a majority consensus of two editors already. Furthermore, WP:AGF rather than accusing everyone of something. WP:CSECTION isn’t my main point, you know why wealth and public image aren’t included because there is an abundance of content in those sections and it is on a certain subject with importance, it definitely seems like you are singling out negative info on Imran Khan’s page out of personal bias. If you want, change the title to “Time in opposition” but that is how a Wikipedia article’s structure works. You can’t have the whole article follow a timeline and then single out one event at the end. Titan2456 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Sheriff has made disruptive edits on another page I was working on, and an admin eventually stepped in to address it. It might be best if he takes a break and returns later. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already addressed the concerns and clarified why it is not suitable for inclusion in the section about his time in opposition. I have nothing more to add. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Observers v Shamsi

@Burrobert It would be altogether out of place if the word "Observers" were replaced with "Amber Shamsi." Amber Shamsi is one in a series of analysts or critics running through the entire article concerning Khan's effort at anti-corruption. The original text uses the term "Observers" to capture multiple sources of input such as but not limited to other experts like Michael Kugelman and political figures like Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. Using the name 'Amber Shamsi' exclusively narrows that vision and gives the impression that she was the only one to remark on these selective anti-corruption campaigns where, in fact, there is much broader criticism in this article by various persons. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like wp:weasel wording. Specify who is making the comment and what they say. The political figures whose opinion is mentioned in the article are Shehbaz Sharif, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Zulfiqar Ali Bader. The analysts are Michael Kugelman, Amber Shamsi, and Benazir Shah. I could not find where any of the "analysts" said Khan's efforts were "selective". Who are the "critics" who "question the effectiveness and impartiality of Khan's anti-corruption policies". Burrobert (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve restored your original wording, though Shamsi and Abbasi’s statements do suggest that the anti-corruption campaign focused on opposition politicians, which can reasonably be interpreted as selective efforts. Paraphrasing naturally varies from person to person. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Burrobert (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Premiership Summary

@Canned Knight, these edits [1][2] you made are good, but I think they should be included on the Premiership of Imran Khan page, as opinions or intricate details of Khan's premiership should be in that article, this article is only supposed to contain a summary of that. Titan2456 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess they could be moved to the Premiership article and summarized/shortened on this page. Canned Knight (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree Titan2456 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)