Imran Khan is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by Titan2456 (talk) at 01:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)
Short description: Former Pakistani cricketer and former prime minister (born 1952)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imran Khan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Imran 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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Imran Khan is part of WikiProject Pashtun, a project to maintain and expand Pashtun-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.PashtunWikipedia:WikiProject PashtunTemplate:WikiProject PashtunPashtun articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
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]
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]
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]
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
@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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Address the point brought up prior
Accuse both editors of bias
