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.

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

    Allegation of harassment moved to time in opposition

    [edit]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]