Talk:Imran Khan

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

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)

 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)

Press freedom

@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, stated that the government continued to "suppress dissenting voices in NGOs and the media under the guise of national security." 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. 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.

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".

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.

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."

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

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".

- "... the Imperial College of London ranked Pakistan at fourth for coronavirus reproduction in the country based on data from 20 July ..."

- "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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

References

Tagging dispute

@SheriffIsInTown Just want to reiterate, follow WP:DETAG as explained prior. Constant reverts are hard to keep up with and are highly disruptive to Wikipedia. I have clearly explained in the talk page how both these sections have major issues with the first failing WP:NPOV and the seconds’ sources not relating enough to the BLP subject. [5] [6] Regardless of how you feel about content you wrote, you have to respond and discuss in the talk page and build consensus, you cannot remove tags because I do not agree with the tagging thus removing the tags. [7] This is counted as edit warring and is not constructive. Titan2456 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You should familiarise yourself with WP:DETAG. According to this policy, any editor has the right to disagree with tags and remove them. If you believe there is an issue, it does not mean other editors are obligated to agree with you. Furthermore, as per WP:BRD, it is you who are engaging in edit-warring. Your tagging was a bold edit that I reverted. Instead of reinstating the tags, you were expected to initiate a discussion and build consensus before restoring them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone has the right to disagree but cannot move the tag without further discussion.

"Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag". That's three criteria that must be satisfied. In addition:

"If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate".

So, tags should remain while a discussion is ongoing. BRD is not relevant to tags. Since there are only a few editors involved in the discussion, what about posting the issue on the NPOV and/or BLP noticeboards? Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of the tags satisfied all three criteria, I do not have a COI, I did not see the purported problem and there was no detailed complaint on talk page, as for the BRD, I tend to disagree, I think it applies to any content dispute. I have no problem if anyone of you wants to engage BLPN or NPOVN. Here it seems that Titan wants to place the tags as a placeholder while they work on other things to which I disagree. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Burrobert for that thorough explanation. To Sheriff, that is a misuse of BRD to justify revert-warring. More importantly, making 5 reverts [8][9][10][11][12] while ignoring threads discussing issues is a serious violation of 4RR, I hope you understand that. Please be more careful when reverting as in this instance, it definitely constitutes edit warring. I am reinstating the tags per the explanation of WP:DETAG mentioned above. You also do have a conflict of interest, as you created and wrote the section being tagged.

there was no detailed complaint on talk page

I don’t know how much detail you are looking for in a complaint, as I created an entire new thread and wrote this initially:

@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 [13][14][15]. 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.

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.

It appears whether deliberate, an attempt to ignore discussion to purposely edit-war. Please do not ignore this comment like past comments. Titan2456 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You have a very poor understanding of Wikipedia policies and processes including WP:BRD, WP:COI, WP:3RR, WP:4RR, and WP:GAN. In fact your talk page is filled with failure notices of GAN so please do not tell us what are the problems with this article on its way to GAN as your POV pushing might be the biggest of them all. Please take some time and try to understand them better. Instead of restoring the tags, list the problems here so someone can advise you a better way forward. Your comment addressed to @Canned Knight was responded by me and them both and we both disagreed with you, we did not ignore you. Also, would you care to explain where does BRD states that tags are excluded from that process? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Reham Khan

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@Veldsenk Ask yourself whether the source is reliable What makes the source reliable? Reham Khan is a notable individual, and her book was published by HarperCollins, which is recognized as one of the “Big Five” English-language publishers per the article itself. The guideline Avoid repeating gossip raises the question: who decides what qualifies as gossip? The reliability of the source determines this. Regarding whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject, again, the reliability of the source is key in deciding whether the content is true. Moreover, both you and the Enthusiast are treating the allegations as facts, whereas the content clearly states that Reham Khan alleged Imran Khan made these statements. It is entirely accurate to report these as Reham Khan’s allegations. There is no requirement for the mother to corroborate these claims, as we are not presenting them as facts. No one is asserting that he had children with Indian mothers; we are simply stating that Reham alleged he told her so. Would you be willing to move the content to "Controversies" section as a compromise? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)