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.

    Issues with the article preventing GAN

    [edit]

    These are the main issues preventing the article from reaching GA level, I will make these changes soon, @SheriffIsInTown, if you oppose a specific one then I would be willing to request a Third Opinion or an appropriate noticeboard as a solution.


    Per WP:WEIGHT, this section is too long for one journalists’ opinion, especially on a BLP. Also, this seems very promotional against Khan. Solution is to trim this section to 1-3 sentences:

    Catherine Bennet writing for The Guardian raised concerns over his candidacy due to his controversial statements and affiliations. She pointed to remarks, such as calling Osama bin Laden a "martyr" and his expressed support for the Taliban, particularly regarding their policies on women's education and his views on rape. Khan's suggestions that women must dress modestly to prevent sexual violence were condemned as victim-blaming,[1] undermining efforts to combat gender-based violence and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. These perspectives conflict with Oxford's commitment to diversity, equality, and inclusion. With strong alternative candidates like Lady Elish Angiolini, who prioritises accessibility and social justice, she argues that Khan's candidacy poses a risk to the university's reputation and progressive ideals. She contends that his views indicate a broader disregard for women's rights, rendering him an unsuitable representative for an institution dedicated to equality and safeguarding individual rights.[2]

    Unnecessary amounts of opinion pieces and Op-eds rather than encyclopedic facts, it would be better to remove these entirely, considering most of these are violations of WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:INTEXT anyways.

    After Imran Khan's vote of no-confidence, economist Atif Mian said that Imran Khan "inherited a bad economy but left it in even worse shape." Mian further criticised the PTI government for the state of the economy.[1]

    Farzana Shaikh, from think-tank Chatham House, said that Munir may have faced difficulties when he raised the corruption allegations with Khan.[1]

    Michael Kugelman, from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said "Khan may have a genuine commitment to combat corruption, but the sheer scale of the problem — not to mention the power of vested interests that don't want a change in the status quo — underscores that this continues to be an uphill battle. Anti-corruption is one of those goals that is so much easier to envision when in the opposition than inside the system. Khan has learned that the hard way".[1]

    In an opinion editorial wrote in March 2020, Ayesha Siddiqa wrote Khan "appeared confused and not in charge of the situation. From poorly explaining the risks associated with the spread of the deadly coronavirus to badly calculating the pros and cons of a lockdown, the Pakistan Prime Minister has looked clueless".[1] 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".[2] In April 2020, the government's responses led to pandemic-related response confusion,[3][4] being "lackadaisical" and having "deprived the country of a clear sense of direction."[5]

    Premiership Section

    The premiership section needs to be heavily condensed as per the summary style, while concerns above mentioned of undue weight also need to be implemented. Other concerns about NPOV and the the whole section remain as it sticks out like a sore thumb on the BLP, violating basic BLP rules let alone the GA criteria, but solutions are being discussed for this so hopefully it will be resolved. The image mentioned above is also a high-quality image showing him with the Prime Ministers’ flag in the back, in an official government space, it would be better to include it once the summary of his premiership stabilizes. For now I am adding a tag to indicate that it violates the summary style.

    Citations

    Citations will need to be made more reliable, which I am willing to complete 100% of this task. Overall sources and books will need to be included while website citations can be converted to news citations, with reliable authors and publishers.

    Post-Premiership section

    The entire post-premiership section needs a lot of work, which I am also willing to do 100% of. I will leave my planned changes at the talk page prior to making them to achieve consensus. Titan2456 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let’s address them individually. I am open to removing the Catherine Bennet paragraph, provided the subsequent paragraph is also removed. We can remove the Catherine Bennet paragraph along with the following one. Asad Iqbal writing for The Oxford Blue, Daniel Hannan writing for Zeteo and Peter Oborne writing for the Middle East Eye stated that Imran Khan is the ideal pick for chancellor, due to his achievements, primarily citing moral strength and his personal values as reasons. Oborne had concerns about human rights and media freedomunder Khan's premiership. Oborne further said that Khan would be the only candidate that cares about the plight of the Palestinians. He was also praised by Iqbal for his establishment of the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Memorial Hospital, which Iqbal stated was another reason for Khan being fit for the role. Iqbal went on to praise Khan’s flagship Ehsaas Programme and called Khan a "champion of women’s participation in governance". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree Titan2456 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the newly added opinion by Daniel Hannan, I have reinstated the previously removed content. Hannan's perspective creates an imbalance. The reinstated content is necessary to present a more comprehensive and balanced narrative. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiEnthusiast1001 refer to this, it has been agreed upon that we will neither include Catherine Bennet's, Daniel Hannan's or anyones opinion on the chancellorship section as it has been agreed that most opinion pieces should be removed from this article. I have removed both opinion pieces. Titan2456 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we should adhere to the guidelines outlined in WP:RSEDITORIAL on this issue. According to this policy, editorials and op-eds authored by notable figures can be included. Both Hannan and Bennett meet the notability criteria. While we might agree today to exclude opinions by such figures, there’s no guarantee that future edits won’t add their viewpoints, potentially resulting in an imbalance since the policy permits their inclusion. Therefore, it’s more prudent to retain opinions from notable individuals while removing those from non-notable sources. I don’t think we should be making compromises here; what aligns with the policy should remain, and what does not should be excluded. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titan2456 @SheriffIsInTown What are your thoughts on this? Shouldn't this be removed from the Political Ideology section, since it primarily discusses his ideology throughout his career rather than during his prime ministership? The points mentioned are already covered in other sections of the article.
    "After the result of 2018 Pakistani general election, Khan said he would try to remake Pakistan based on the ideology of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. During his government, Khan addressed a balance of payments crisis with a bailout from the IMF. He presided over a shrinking current account deficit, and limited defence spending to curtail the fiscal deficit, leading to some general economic growth. He enacted policies that increased tax collection in Pakistan, as well as investments, and the energy policy of Pakistan under Khan saw his government committed to a renewable energy transition. Khan's government also launched the social safety net and poverty alleviation Ehsaas Programme and the Plant for Pakistan initiative, which expanded the protected areas of Pakistan, and he presided over the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan, which caused economic turmoil and rising inflation in the country and threatened Khan's political position.
    Khan's failure to revive the economy of Pakistan and the rising inflation rate caused him political problems. Despite his promised anti-corruption campaign, the perception of corruption in Pakistan worsened during his rule. He was accused of political victimisation of opponents and clamping down on freedom of expression and dissent. On 10 April 2022, Khan became the country's first prime minister to be ousted through a no-confidence motion vote in parliament. On 22 August 2022, Khan was charged by the Pakistani police under anti-terror laws after Khan accused the police and judiciary of detaining and torturing his close aide." WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support retaining the criticism related to COVID-19 management as it constitutes a minor portion of a broader section that largely highlights achievements and successes. The same applies to Atif Mian's criticism. The premiership and post-premiership sections reflect consensus versions developed by multiple editors. I do not support removing any content, except moving the content from premiership section to premiership article. The summary must be balanced and neutral. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I generally agree (e.g. the imprisonment section should focus more on the legal aspect rather than opinions regarding a proposed Oxford candidacy), just for future reference I do not think it is necessary to refer to editorials and oped's as being editorials and opeds in the article itself, as seen in the 2024 United States presidential election#Analyst Assessment, 2024 Joe Biden–Donald Trump presidential debate#Reception and aftermath, Economic policy of the first Donald Trump administration#Overall evaluations, and the Imran Khan#Public image section. It would be better to follow Wikipedia's general style of a neutral tone "Journalist X wrote/said in Y paper that ..."; I don't believe in my opinion that it is important to inform the reader that the cited source is an "opinion editorial" in various areas Canned Knight (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should follow WP:OPINION and WP:INTEXT on that. The summary should be short, and including so many opinions (whether positive or negative) is completely unnecessary. Instead, we should rely on encyclopedic facts. The summary should just include what actually happened (eg. Job growth, inflation rise, current account rise, deficit decrease) in very short sentences, not what one person thought about it in specific. We would naturally have to give more weight on mentioning facts which are confirmed to have happened. Titan2456 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The summary should be short" does not mean we should discard content on which multiple editors have spent considerable time and effort. The summary should indeed be concise, neutral, and balanced, but only after moving the Premiership section to Premiership article and ensuring that article is neutral and balanced. If main article contains promotional POV then summary would end up containing promotional POV as well which we need to avoid. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinions from significant people and analysts like Ayesha Siddiqa can be moved to the premiership article, Atif Mian’s has already been moved, but a separate section called “analyses” or “opinions” should be created on that article. Opinions from random op-ed writers hold no encyclopedic value and should be removed entirely as they are also violating WP:BLPBALANCE, but the opinions of significant people might deserve some inclusion on the premiership article. As for this article, again the summary should only talk about facts and what actually happened, not opinions and the aftermath as WP:DETAIL says. Titan2456 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with creating a separate section titled Analysis or Opinions, as it violates WP:NPOV. Opinions should be placed in the relevant sections: for example, opinions about the economy should go in the Economy section, and those about COVID-19 should be included in the COVID-19 section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you agree with everything else mentioned though? Titan2456 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, only the opinions of notable individuals and editorials of WP:RS news outlets should be included in the premiership article. However, regarding the summary, I am not entirely opposed to including opinions. The extent to which opinions can be incorporated into the summary will depend on the content in the premiership article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with @Canned Knight that it is unnecessary to label editorials and op-eds explicitly as such within the article. It is generally understood that content attributed to a specific author or journalist represents their opinion. Regarding the Imprisonment and Chancellorship sections, both are subsections of the Post-Premiership section. Since the Chancellorship section is not part of the Imprisonment section, the current structure works fine. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

    [edit]

    Add Nickname of 'Murshid' as well. Here is the reference: Mobilising PTI workers from Punjab: Aleema informs IK about Gohar’s failure - Pakistan - Business Recorder Adilch (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: No indication in cited reference that it is a surname, let alone a WP:COMMONNAME. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Press freedom

    [edit]

    @Canned Knight, as part of the process of getting this to GA, the press freedom section has too much information that does not directly involve Imran Khan. As for the HRW report, every year the HRW has given a report on the poor state of affairs about human rights in Pakistan, they gave one for Shehbaz Sharif's, Gillani's and Nawaz Sharif's government with very similar wording [1][2][3]. I don't think this much information should be added to this BLP or any Prime Ministers' BLP, and should be merged into press freedom in Pakistan, along with all the other HRW reports. Importantly, most of these sources have no mention of Imran Khan at all, which is why this could be considered as WP:OR, with the 2019 HRW report not blaming any suppression committed by Khan, the Reporters Without Borders source not mentioning him, the third not mentioning him at all again, the Dawn source mentioning him only once in a quotation, the World Association of Newspapers not mentioning him at all again, IPI not blaming any suppression committed by Khan. Only the last source, a PDF mentions Khan explicitly. This information should be removed, thank you.

    Human Rights Watch (HRW) in its World Report 2019, covering events from late 2017 to November 2018,[1] stated that the government continued to "suppress dissenting voices in NGOs and the media under the guise of national security."[2] In April 2019, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) "condemn[ed]" directives of the Interior Ministry and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate journalists who posted images of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.[3] Earlier, the interior ministry claimed there was a "targeted social media campaign planned/executed" during the visit of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and ordered an inquiry into online criticism after a similar probe proposal had been "thwarted" 20-days before by the government.[4]

    In June 2021, the World Association of Newspapers (WAN-IFRA), International Publishers Association (IPA) and International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called on the government to retract proposals to establish the Pakistan Media Development Authority (PMDA) which would centralise all media regulation into a single body. The three groups criticised the proposal and said they were "particularly alarmed" by provisions providing for Media Tribunals that would be "vested with the power to hand down punishments of up to three years in jail and fines of up to 25 million Pakistani rupees".[5]

    In December 2021, the International Press Institute (IPI) said "the government has shown increasing intolerance to critical journalism" and "[t]he armed forces have also played a key role in stifling press freedom in the country. Cases of abduction, physical attacks, and torture of journalists have become commonplace." IPI also criticised the disruption of newspaper circulation and the "tactics" of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) "to limit independent news coverage by cable operators news channels". In an open letter to Prime Minister Imran Khan, IPI "expressed grave concerns" over a proposed ordinance to establish the PDMA.[6]

    The Pakistan Press Foundation's (PPF) Press Freedom in Pakistan 2021-22 report documented 2 abductions, 41 assaults, 13 arrests, 23 threats, and 7 legal actions against media professionals, along with raids on journalists' homes and press clubs. It criticized online censorship, the FIA's overreach, PEMRA's blanket bans, and government rhetoric but commended the "Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Bill, 2021" as a "significant first step."[7]

    1. ^ "World Report 2019". Human Rights Watch. 2019. Retrieved 15 December 2024.
    2. ^ Pakistan: Events of 2018, Human Rights Watch, 2018-12-20, retrieved 2024-12-05
    3. ^ "Six Pakistani journalists investigated for posting Khashoggi photos online". Reporters Without Borders. 2019-04-01. Retrieved 2024-12-06.
    4. ^ Ali, Kalbe (2019-03-29). "Probe into social media criticism on VVIP visit revived". Dawn. Retrieved 2024-12-06.
    5. ^ "World's press, book publishers and journalists condemn Pakistan plan for strict control over media". World Association of Newspapers. 2021-10-06.
    6. ^ "The state of media freedom in Pakistan". International Press Institute. 2021-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-05.
    7. ^ "Press Freedom in Pakistan 2021-22: Attacks, legislation, rhetoric and trolling — A media under pressure" (PDF). Pakistan Press Foundation. 2022.

    Titan2456 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would still remain hesitant when removing these sources, given that; many mention the government itself, which he headed; HRW giving low scores for Gilani and both Sharifs does not give any reason for removing; @WikiEnthusiast1001 removed a source that mentioned Imran Khan, so we could just add that back; he held the ministry of interior portfolio during the period the Dawn article was published; PDMA was proposed by his government; and that the following in Covid-19 response would have to be removed for being considered WP:OR:
    - "Khan's strategy proved effective, when he was praised by the World Health Organization (WHO) for his government's response to the virus by establishing temporary isolation wards".[1]
    - "... the Imperial College of London ranked Pakistan at fourth for coronavirus reproduction in the country based on data from 20 July ..."[2]
    - "In September 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Pakistan was "among countries from whom the international community should learn how to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic." (The source only describes IK chairing NSC meeting)[3]
    Since these sources do not mention Khan, especially given that pandemic responses are also driven by NGOs, provincial governments, etc. While I would not propose their removal, if the press freedom section were to be moved then so would the Covid-19 response. Canned Knight (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Canned Knight (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An ongoing and deliberate effort appears to be aimed at selectively removing criticism under various contexts, whether policy-related or not, while attempting to retain positive information, even when it fails to meet the same standards applied to critical content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canned Knight, the allegations of press freedom violations do not fall on Imran Khan, and fall on his government, which I still think deserves some mention in this BLP, but 3 paragraphs based of off sources that do not mention him is unnecessary. I would follow the WP:WEIGHT clause of NPOV here, as too much of an in depth explanation on poor press freedom under his government, despite sources not mentioning him as responsible seems to be unnecessary. As for the COVID-19 section, I agree that it is counted as WP:OR the same way, but the second source of that clearly mentions that Khan himself is lauded for the smart lockdowns. The press freedom violations can be moved to Press freedom in Pakistan, while the WHO’s praise can be moved to COVID-19 in Pakistan accordingly.
    More importantly, I have been working on a short summary that follows the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for a week, and my plan was to just replace the imbalanced and OR areas of the section with a neutral summary, but due to issues it is taking longer than I expected, which is why I am adding tags for now on areas with issues until I finish writing a summary. Titan2456 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want your efforts to go wasted but the previous imbalanced summary resulted in explosion of content and if you are writing the summary, we expect the same issues to arise as you have been seen having POV issues and misrepresenting the sources. Don’t be surprised if your summary gets rewritten extensively by others including myself. Also, please understand that no content will be removed; it will instead be moved to the premiership article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your concern for my efforts, can you be a little bit more specific on where I misinterpreted sources. I am open to working with you so I want to stay on-topic and focus on this article. My summary is almost complete. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not really hard to find misinterpretation of sources in your contributions. I can pick anyone of your contributions and find misinterpretation. The hard thing is that you ref bomb one line of misinterpreted content with three sources. The assumption might be that who is going to have time to read all three sources and find out whether there is a misrepresentation or not. Did you read all three sources yourself to come up with this one line of content? Where did you see eight companies mentioned and how did you come up with the wording that he intensified his campaign? Please have mercy on us and don’t write the summary, let someone else do it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was really hoping for some constructive feedback, from a senior editor like yourself, something that would help me become a better editor. Your last comment Please have mercy on us and don’t write the summary, let someone else do it. has hurt me deeply, it is Wikipedia's policy to reach community consensus and work together, not exclude other editors' hard work. I understand your comment on ref bombing, however, this is misdirected, as my edit was copy-pasted directly from the Panama Papers case lead section and these references are included in this original to back up the exact same statement, which I did not have any contributions to:
    Opposition politicians Imran Khan and Sheikh Rasheed petitioned the court in the aftermath of the Panama Papers leak, which uncovered links between the Sharif family and eight offshore companies.[4][5][6]
    If you feel overwhelmed and cannot give time and attention to fixing the POV/TOOMUCH summary, the least that you can do is not demotivate other editors to do so. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been trying to give constructive feedback for so long now. My time on Wikipedia is only being spent on fixing your contributions. Here is constructive feedback, do not copy content containing POV wording from one article to another, if you do, take full responsibility for your actions. First ensure that content you are copying adheres to the sources then ensure that it does not contain POV wording. Do not get carried away by political ambitions and just copy the content because it fits your POV but if you do then take full responsibility. Here is another one, "most publicized in Pakistan's history" (POV wording) and Sheikh Rasheed were not mentioned in the sources, a BLPVIO that is as well. Do you know how long it takes to read all those five sources and then fix the content which was your responsibility to begin-with when you added that content? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this sounds more like constructive feedback, so as I understand you are suggesting not to copy-paste anything from a lead section or to take care when doing so. If you are implying the latter then I would like to reiterate that every single piece of content I added except the first statement was copy-pasted in exact from the lead of the Panama Papers case article. I thoroughly reviewed the contents of the article and found that they do not have any POV statements and assume responsibility for using them.
    You have cited that there is no mention of eight companies, however, the citations explicitly names companies and a later reference that you might have missed, explicitly mentions "eight" companies. [4]
    As for the second example are you suggesting The case has been described as the most publicized in Pakistan's history, as well as a "defining moment" for the country.[7][8] is a POV statement? The citations are clearly calling this
    The Panama Papers are an unprecedented leak
    Panama Papers – Making headlines in Pakistan during 2016
    Panama Papers made waves when politicians, public officials or close associates implicated in the leak came to public notice.
    Along with this, the statement was in the article's lead (top) for a long time, indicating consensus and community approval. Was I wrong in using this?
    Hopefully this demonstrates how much time and effort I put into my work and try to keep my (non-existent) political ambitions and POV in check. Why is all of your time on Wikipedia being spent on "fixing" my contributions? Titan2456 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the press freedom section, it is entirely relevant to Imran Khan’s premiership. Once we transfer the rest of the content, we can move this section to the premiership article as well and incorporate some points from it into the summary of this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "WHO praises Pakistan for virus response". The Express Tribune. 22 April 2020.
    2. ^ "Prime minister's 'smart lockdown' lauded globally". The Express Tribune. 2020-07-24. Retrieved 2024-11-05.
    3. ^ Ikram Junaidi (11 September 2020). "WHO praises Pakistan's handling of Covid-19 pandemic". Dawn.
    4. ^ "Pakistan: Supreme Court hears Panama leaks case". Al Jazeera. 1 November 2016. Retrieved 24 January 2017.
    5. ^ "Maryam Safdar named in Panama Papers as beneficiary". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 24 January 2017.
    6. ^ "PTI lawyer presents arguments in Panama Papers case". Dunyanews.tv. 9 January 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2017.
    7. ^ Geo News. "Want to become PM: Imran Khan". Geo. Jang Group. Retrieved 12 April 2017.
    8. ^ Samaa TV. "2016 – The year when Pakistan said 'hola' to Panama Papers". Samaa. Retrieved 12 April 2017.

    Reham Khan

    [edit]

    You removed longstanding content under the pretext of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. The removed content does not fall under both of these policy excerpts as it is sourced to five different sources presumed to be secondary reliable sources and properly attributed to a notable Reham Khan who is the former wife of the subject. Can you please cite any specifics from these policy excerpts which dictate the removal of this content? Mere assumption by an editor that the content is gossip is not good enough reason to remove it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with User:Veldsenk's removal of the content as per WP:GRAPEVINE and I have removed the content, citing the policy violations in my edit summary. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiEnthusiast1001 Rule number 3 specifies that contentious material must be removed if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. However, the content in question was neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. As mentioned, it was backed by five sources assumed to be secondary and reliable, and it was appropriately attributed to Reham Khan, a notable figure and the subject’s former wife. The content does not fall under the scope of WP:GRAPEVINE in any manner. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is NOT what rule number 3 states. It states: "relies on self-published sources, UNLESS WRITTEN BY THE SUBJECT of the BLP;" WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiEnthusiast1001 Your edit summary is absurd, claiming that a lack of editing by you for years means there was no consensus. Please refer to WP:CONSENSUS. The content remained in the article for over six years, supported by references with an access-date of August 2018. You cannot arbitrarily claim there was no consensus simply because you didn’t edit for years and then remove content, especially when an editor has already objected to its removal. Furthermore, if you edited thinking something was an error and someone has objected, asserting it was not an error, then you should not continue reverting while insisting it was an error—especially when the content has been in the article for so long and there is an active objection to its removal. People other than you have been editing for those six years, so, in your opinion, their editing has no value, and we should always wait until you start editing to constitute consensus. Veldsenk initially removed the content, but I restored it and initiated a discussion. Since they did not respond, it indicates they no longer object. It is only you now piggy-backing on that removal. There is no consensus to remove this content, and I strongly urge you to revert your last edit until there is a consensus for its removal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, we have what appears to be edit warring on a contentious topic. I'm happy there's a thread here because I'm almost ready to fully protect this article. I believe editors here need a third party opinion or dispute resolution help. This "did-not/did-too" behavior will stop, even if I must block both of you from editing the page. BusterD (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @BusterD Would you be willing to provide a third opinion on this matter? We need input on two points: first, whether it was appropriate for Enthusiast to remove content that had been in the article for over six years without reaching a consensus, and second, whether the content in question violates WP:GRAPEVINE. In my view, it does not, as their claim that it breaches rule number three is inaccurate. Reham’s book is not self-published; it was published by HarperCollins, and there are five additional secondary sources quoting her book. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheriff and WikiEnthusiast1001: I think we have to find a compromise here and deal with it peacefully without reverting each other. As an outside editor, I found that Reham Khan's statement was violating WP:BLPGOSSIP, so we should not include it unless we have multiple sources. R. Khan's statement in her memoir is one source (albeit an unreliable one, as she is not a witness to this event and is merely repeating what she heard from Imran Khan, even though Imran Khan disputes that he said this). We don't know who is telling the truth, so we should wait for a second source, and coverage by the media of her claim won't increase the count of sources. Her own statement gives an indication that it is dubious, I'm quoting our article: Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth."
    So I still object to its inclusion and would recommend including it only as soon as a second person repeats this claim or the Indian mother herself comes out and explains the situation. In these six years, nothing has happened, so it is likely a false accusation against a living person. I have nothing more to say on this and was busy in finding his other relations and early life coverage via British Newspaper Archive. Veldsenk (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Emphasis is mine. Veldsenk (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&oldid=1265079690"