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.

    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]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

    [edit]

    Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi[a] (Urdu: عمران خان) (born 5 October 1952) Hafsa pk (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done... it is not clear what change you want made, please format your request as "change X to Y". - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Premiership summary

    [edit]

    @SheriffIsInTown @PearlyGigs@WikiEnthusiast1001, the premiership section is now very long after Sheriff began expanding only criticism, it is now almost as long as the premiership article itself and violates the summary style, either we can shift back to the old summary, my one, which was short, or delete the premiership page entirely and merge into this. Titan2456 (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have some ideas on how to shorten it for now, but it would be better to take one of the two above mentioned actions. Titan2456 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have communicated your point without directing accusations at me. Are you trying to provoke conflict in every conversation? Just to remind you, you presented a one-sided narrative that overlooked WP:NPOV, which I noticed and made an effort to balance. Naturally, your positive narrative could only be countered with criticism. Additionally, the section had contributions from WE1001 and @Canned Knight. By the way, who are PearlyGigs? Are you attempting to WP:CANVASS? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no accusation, the expansion stemmed after you added a lot of negative content additions. I used an online summarizing tool to summarize the Premiership of Imran Khan page but the section has now become completely a violation of WP:SUMMARY and WP:BLPBALANCE. The premiership section had years of contributions of people adding negative and positive information, finally achieving a balance. However, since it was effectively blanked by me due to the article split, it is and will go through the same edit-warring pattern again for a long time to come, thats why its better to restore the consensused old premiership section which is balanced, merging it. PearlyGigs was one of the editors who supported the summary and article split originally in the first discussion. The section will immediately fail GA as it already fails WP:BLP. Titan2456 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is being addressed, its important to note that you have added clear violations of WP:BLP that need to be fixed with consensus.
    Firstly, WP:BLPBALANCE is violated with: In April 2020, Imad Zafar penned an opinion editorial in The Asia Times, wrote Khan's government was "playing the blame game by bashing opposition politicians to divert the masses’ attention from the pandemic’s effect".[1]
    Secondly, the second sentence is a violation of WP:INTEXT, not giving a mention of the opinion piece and possibly also giving undue weight to the minority opinion piece viewpoint: In April 2020, the government's responses led to pandemic-related response confusion,[2][3] being "lackadaisical" and having "deprived the country of a clear sense of direction."[4] Titan2456 (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; Sheriff mainly elaborated on the criticism, which made it necessary to balance the section with positives for neutrality. This essentially defeats the purpose of having a separate Premiership article. I’m fine with reverting to your earlier summary or merging the Premiership page into this one entirely. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your reasoning for supporting the merger of a 4,623-word article into one that already exceeds 13,000 words? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to do your research before you speak. This time, I am not saying "before you open your mouth" because then you accuse me of using harsh language, but this is really getting on my nerves. You need to stop accusing me of things I did not do. You accused me of the same at ANI. I could have nailed you down right there, as you were completely wrong, but I didn't because I knew people were upset due to our back-and-forth bickering. To be succinct, this content was not added by me. I challenge you to post the diffs here showing that I added that content. When you find out that you were wrong, be a gentleman and apologize for falsely accusing me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you cannot have a summary section that presents a one-sided narrative without neutral balance. The issue began when you included a section that only documented achievements, which would have certainly failed GAN. It is much closer to GAN now after being properly balanced neutrally than it was when you added promotional content that wasn’t supported by reliable sources and much of which failed verification. I had to align it with sources and then work to balance it neutrally, so stop accusing me and focus on discussing the content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You accused me first of the exact same thing, expect some kind of response when opening a discussion like that. I didn’t open this thread to start bickering, it is to achieve a consensus on how to summarize his premiership; also tagging @Burrobert for consensus. It is much closer to GAN now after being properly balanced neutrally. Really? PearlyGigs and you yourself accepted it initially, proving that it wasn’t inherently promotional. The new summary immediately fails five WP policies: WP:SUMMARY, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INTEXT as well as still failing WP:NPOV. Examples provided above which haven’t been adressed. For NPOV, the corruption section added ignores all the steps Khan took against corruption and immediately jumps to how the attempts failed, including another BLPBALANCE violation, with the opinion of a certain “Farzana Shaikh” provided for no reason. These should all be addressed to reach a final consensus on how to summarize his premiership as it will result in future conflicts over the premiership section. These are also basic BLP violations, some of the most basic WP laws, this is sadly far from GA. Titan2456 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked you for the diffs regarding the content of which you accuse me of adding but you did not provide any because you do not have any, here I provide you those diffs:
    • Original content was added by Canned Knight
    • Attribution to The Express Tribune was added by WikiEnthusiast1001
    Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a mistake on my part to assume you made those changes, however, my concerns over the COVID and Corruption section still remain, which were added by you and are still overly negative filled with too many opinions rather than facts and statistics. Whoever added BLP violations it should be removed, Again, the reason for this thread is to establish a unanimous consensus like seen on the Donald Trump page, which prevents edit warring, on this vital BLP. Titan2456 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A better solution would be to either leave it as it is or combine the information from this article into the premiership article and then revise the summary, making sure it is neutral, balanced, and adheres to the sources. I can take care of all that if you folks trust me, though trust is something we seem to be lacking here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Zafar, Imad (2020-04-24). "Imran Khan's wrong priorities during pandemic". Asia Times. Retrieved 2024-11-05.
    2. ^ "Lockdown or No Lockdown? Confusion Dominates Pakistan's COVID Response". Voice of America. 2020-05-01. Retrieved 2024-11-05.
    3. ^ Findlay, Stephanie; Bokhari, Farhan (25 April 2020). "Pakistan's Imran Khan sidelined by military during coronavirus outbreak". Financial Times. Retrieved 2024-11-05. Even after the lockdown was announced, Mr Khan repeatedly questioned whether it was necessary, sowing confusion about the country's response as infections rose sharply.
    4. ^ Hussain, Tom. "The coronavirus outbreak may hurt Imran Khan's political future". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-05.