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.

    Observers v Shamsi

    [edit]

    @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)[reply]

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

    Premiership Summary

    [edit]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I agree Titan2456 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titan2456 Could you add the content you removed from this article to the Premiership article? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Premiership of Imran Khan

    [edit]

    @WikiEnthusiast1001 Are we bringing the content back from Premiership of Imran Khan, the section you keep expanding was supposed to be a summary. The initial need to expand arose when Titan 2456 added only one-sided promotional content without balancing and neutralizing but that does not mean that we should keep expanding it further. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass revert

    [edit]

    @WikiEnthusiast1001 Your edit summary stated Restoring chronological order undone by Sheriff and removing duplicate AP link., you did not just restore the chronological order which was not important according to WP:CITEORDER but have undone all of my changes which included fixing the fully capitalized source title to meet WP:MOS, the improved language for the content under harassment allegations to make them more neutral, balanced and structured, uncited statement under removal of office, the text "Others attributed the motion to" not supported by the source, and undue statement about Gulalai maligning Pakistan Army, all this just to restore chronological order of sources which does not matter under WP:CITEORDER or was this your intention to undo all those changes, if so, can you explain why? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @WikiEnthusiast1001 I waited for your reply for over 36 hours, I went ahead and restored everything else keeping your preferred cite order as-is, following is the explanation regarding all the changes, instead of a mass revert, please reply with your objections to all of these changes and I am open to further discussion on this matter.
    Explanation of changes
    • I moved all the metadata details for APA source to the first named instance.
    • Removed the text "Other's attributed the motion to" since the BBC source by Muhammad Hanif talks about Khan's overall relations with military and does not even mention the motion.
    • Removed the words "Khan's rival political party" in reference to Amir Muqam since source explicitly does not state so.
    • Removed the text "Gulalai later admitted that she had been in contact with the PML-N and they had offered her a senate ticket to malign the Pakistan Army." since Gulalai being offered senate ticket to malign Pakistan Army is undue in article about Khan.
    • Adjusted language in harassment allegations section in order to remove informal tone, improve neutrality, expand context, align structure, balanced attribution and for overall balance.
    Happy to explain further if needed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiEnthusiast1001 @Titan2456 Since Titan raised a concern about continuing to edit at ANI, I have decided to voluntarily refrain from editing the page. I also propose that all three of us avoid editing the page until the ANI discussion is resolved or an uninvolved editor confirms that it is appropriate to do so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with that, thanks again for your edit. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]