Jump to content

Talk:Imran Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Umarbinarshad (talk | contribs) at 10:58, 24 November 2014 (→Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Separate page about his cricket career needed

He is one of the greatest cricketers of all time. He is also now a leading politician in a large country. I think the latter is what he is better known for now. It is coming at the cost of of his career in this article. Come on, some guy who played a couple of tests for England last year has more information.

I think we need separate page for his career. 101.50.98.125 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about separate page for his career, but someone feels that even an additional infobox with his VERY IMPRESSIVE career stats is 'unnecessary' and 'not needed'. As a cricket fan, for me that is close to blasphemy.Myopia123 (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan

As a Pakistani I am concerned that you have not updated the profile of great Imran Khan.

Azadi March Imran Khan has given awareness to whole country, youth and women through his famous Azadi March. This protest march has broken all records of longest duration protest in history. But nothing mentioned in Wikipedia.

Stopping Nato Supply Imran Khan stopped Nato Supply to protest against Drone attacks in Pakistan, but Wikipedia does not contain any information about it in Imran Khan profile.


Revolutionary Changes in KPK Under Imran Khan, PTI made revolutionary changes in KPK Province of Pakistan, like independant police culture, RTI, RTS laws, One education system for all. But nothing mentioned.


Kindly update the profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqhammam (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you know...you could take some initiative and do it yourself...Myopia123 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Of Cricket Career by Utilising the Infobox

User Justice007 (talk, I would appreciate it if you keep the discussion on this talk page instead of my personal talk page so that everyone can take part in it. A summary of his career stats is relevant and very useful for readers interested in his cricket career. Info is from a reliable source, therefore satisfies WP:BLP and saying cricket info is 'unnecessary' is a violation of WP:NPOV. In any case, as of this writing, you do not have consensus to remove it. Please let other editors take part in discussion before taking unilateral action.Myopia123 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is an encyclopedia and this is very useful information for cricket fans. The very purpose is to have sum of all human knowledge. Therefore, deeming information, which from an RS and meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines, as 'unnecessary' defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia.Myopia123 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as your suggestion about a separate article is concerned: Imran Khan the cricket player and Imran Khan the politician are the same person. Therefore, it would not make any sense to treat them as though they are two separate persons and have two separate articles.Myopia123 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, claiming that the information is irrelevant because he is retired makes no sense. Observe Wasim Akram. At this point, all that is clear is that, for some reason, you do not desire the information to be there. If there is some sort of prejudice against cricket, that is a violation of WP:NPOV.Myopia123 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And lastly, those are very impressive statistics. He was the captain of the team that won the 1992 World Cup. Any information regarding his cricket career is far from 'irrelevant'.Myopia123 (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navjot Singh Sidhu is another retired cricketer who worked in politics and other professions. He also has two infoboxes on his page. Therefore, there is prior precedent for this.Myopia123 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is the need of two infoboxes, while all information is added in the subject's cricket career section, we should minimise the infobox as per Manual of Style/Infoboxes, infobox is mostly added to the lead section as a wiki-standards. The article is edited by multiple editors, they didn't suggest that except only fans of the subject. If we include all information to infoboxes, is there need of rest of the sections. That is not the way, any contributor registered, and edited any article and saying to other editors reach a consensus, rules don't go that way. You have to reach a WP:consensus per Due and undue weight Instead of expecting me to---. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not required to add reliably sourced information. Consensus IS however required to remove reliably sourced information. The onus is on you to seek consensus to remove the summary of his cricketing career. It is perfectly relevant, does not violate WP:BLP and has no reason to be considered 'unnecessary', which is a very opinionated point of view.Myopia123 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with all due respect, I'm finding it a little difficult to follow what your point exactly is. I have not added 'ALL' the information in the infobox. I have used the infobox as a tool to provide an appropriate summary of his very impressive cricket career. Therefore, the user does not have to browse through all of the text to find his batting or bowling average or his best bowling figures. This is in keeping with WP:READABLE. Myopia123 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a compromise, I moved the infobox below to the section that dealt with his cricket career. The only thing that is coming across is that, for some reason, you are against having the cricket information because you want to focus on his political career. However, any and all reliably sourced information can be added to an article about a person, as long as it does not violate WP:BLP. This information does not violate that and therefore meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. Myopia123 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Justice007 (talk, right now, you do not have consensus to remove the info. Refrain from further action until you have consensus. Myopia123 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am going to spell it out one more time. If there is another revert, I will initiate an RfC: Article policies, with respect to summary of Cricket Statistics in section dealing with Cricket Career:

Therefore, the information can be added and it stays UNTIL consensus is reached through the contribution of other editors that it should be removed. Myopia123 (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to WP:BLP, this is the policy:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourced must 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. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

The information does not violate WP:BLP in any of the ways mentioned above. Therefore, it meets ALL Wikipedia guidelines. Once again, it stays UNTIL consensus is reached through the contribution of other editors that it should be removed. Myopia123 (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CuePutting any views about the need of infobox aside, your concept about consensus is totally incorrect (as pointed out by an administrator to you on your talk page). NPOV, NOR, BLP etc are required as a first. Not having them would not even make your edit eligible for staying in the article. Following policies is the core requirement but it does not make your edit automatically eligible for the article. Once you have proved that your edit satisfies the policies, you have to achieve consensus to get it into the article. The process is WP:BRD. If no one reverts you, it stays. But if they do, the burden of proof is on you to establish consensus. In some cases, it might also be so that the reverting editor even thinks your edit might not even satisfy the basic policies; that's a double 'no' for consensus. That's what consensus means. Please read the links I pointed you to carefully and discuss instead of forcing your edits in. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many infoboxes should be in an article

Note as discussion, the matter of fact, issue is not a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP or removing the information as the editor Myopia123 raising and discussing in a misleading way. The actually dispute is Manual of Style/Infoboxes, how many infoboxes should be in an article?, as I know there should be only one infobox of main information in the top right of an article, next to the lead section. I have taken a look at European sports articles that are included only one infobox, it is the wiki-standard and beauty of lay-out, adding more than one infoboxes is not appropriate, to hight-light the sport information, there should be a wiki-table in the body of section, as many European and American sport articles have. I have edited the article Imran Khan many times, there was added content that fall under promotional and puffery. The most of contributors are fans of the subject, they only add promotional and puffery content. It is an awkward style of contribution. The question is that if any subject has several professions, should be several infoboxes??!!. In the article there is an image in the subject's cricket career, in which same information is included that has been added in its second infobox, it is redundant. I suggest that there should be only one infobox included main information, for the rest, there can be created wiki-table in the section body, that is appropriate style.Justice007 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan
Cricket information
BattingRight hand bat
BowlingRight-arm fast
RoleAll-rounder
International information
National side
Test debut (cap 88)3 June 1971 v England
Last Test2 January 1992 v Sri Lanka
ODI debut (cap 175)31 August 1974 v England
Last ODI25 March 1992 v England
Career statistics
Competition Test ODI FC LA
Matches 88 175 382 425
Runs scored 3807 3709 17771 10100
Batting average 37.69 33.41 36.79 33.22
100s/50s 6/18 1/19 30/93 5/66
Top score 136 102* 170 114*
Balls bowled 19458 7461 65224 19122
Wickets 362 182 1287 507
Bowling average 22.81 26.61 22.32 22.31
5 wickets in innings 23 1 70 6
10 wickets in match 6 0 13 0
Best bowling 8/58 6/14 6/14
Catches/stumpings 28/0 36/0 117/0 84/0
Source: ESPNCricinfo, 5 November 2014

To the right, you will find the information that is relevant to that section. Even though it is done as an infobox, it is a very useful summary of his cricket career that serves to make article more WP:READABLE. If I wanted to look up his highest score in test cricket, his bowling average in ODI's or his number of deliveries etc., I do not have to read through the entire section and locate it, it is right there in a summary, which just happens to be an infobox. Imran Khan was a very successful cricketer and I am certain there are many readers who come to this article for his cricket stats. It is clear to me that the initiator of the RfC wants to focus more on the political information as in his first revert, he called this info 'unnecessary' and 'not needed' because 'he is no longer a cricketer'. I do not see how this summary of information, even if it is done through an infobox, is in ANY way a bad thing. Myopia123 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a matter of precedent, Navjot Singh Sidhu is a retired cricket and a politician who has two infoboxes. Wasim Akram is a retired player who has this information on his article. Myopia123 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these are the actual statistics of his playing career. He was the one to perform them. I do not see anything promotional or 'puffery' about them.Myopia123 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first article you linked is not really in a shape to serve as any precedent. The second one points the cricket information directly into the main infobox. But in case of this article, the main infobox already has other details. See WP:MOS to check what should be done about it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I not sure if I understand you correctly. The current main infobox only mentions 'Cricketer' as a past profession. I cannot look up any of his stats in that infobox. I would have to scan through the text and hope it was there, if it weren't for the second one.Myopia123 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One question, why are you not putting scoring or any other cricketer data in the same infobox? I did this once with PNS Ghazi (a separate infobox for its sinking / war), but some one came along and merged them and it seems much better now. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the issue here was the information(summary of cricket stats). While I do not know how to merge the infobox's, I can find out and do it, if that is a suitable compromise for everyone. Myopia123 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is absolutely not getting the point what we are trying to explain, the issue is not that the subject's cricketer data is promotional or puffery, issue is that there should be one infobox included all main information. The contributor is even not reading thoroughly what are the alternative possibilities. Once again in a easy way, I suggest as TopGun also did that the stats should be merged into main infobox or create a wiki-table, for example, take a look at this statistics, like this can be created in the body of cricketer career, that will be appropriate to reach a consensus to resolve the issue. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Justice007 (talk), the vibe you were sending out was a lot more about the info being unnecessary and puffery and not needed because cricketer is retired etc. Which lead me to believe that the your bone of contention was the information itself. lTopGunl (talk is the first person to state that the information is fine as long as the infoboxes are merged and that is the point at which it was made clear that the information itself is not the issue. In any case, I'll look into it to see how the infoboxes can be merged. Myopia123 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Best to wait for further comments from more uninvolved editors before combining the two infoboxes into one (or deciding to keep separate), but it might have appeared to Justice that using two infoboxes is some kind of forking into another section to add content of your choice (which was actually forced into the article by your editwar as consensus needs to be achieved to add content, not the other way around unless there's a previous consensus to keep it). However, if your intention is just to provide information, you could just have explained it to Justice instead of reverting it in again and again. Please keep in mind to strictly follow a neutral point of view though and not propagate one aspect of his career over the other (which is another thing that appears to be the POV issue of this discussion), perhaps by adding another source that confirms the stats as well? Additionally by answering the point Justice raised why do you need this information (or how does this supplement it) in the article when there is an image captioned "Imran Khan's test career bowling statistics" covering this in another way. I am not a cricket fan or a PTI fan (even though I voted for them) so I can say that I am totally neutral in this regard. With that said, Imran Khan was equally notable (and / or popular) as a cricketer as he is as a politician, and even Justice is agreeing right in his RFC request about atleast including a table for this information so AGF, please. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the infobox is to be merged, it is best to include the top too sections of the second infobox into the main infobox preferrably above the 'personal information' section of the infobox if possible and the scores can go into a table. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myopia, it will be appropriate, as I am not familiar to create larger infoboxes and wiki-tables, otherwise issue was already resolved. Anyhow we are here to improve and expand the articles in accordance with wiki-rules. Thanks for your understanding.Justice007 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing that graph specifically, I personally don't feel that graph is helpful or necessary. It only gives you an idea of his Test Bowling performance over the course of his career, therefore it provides very limited information while taking up a lot of space. The summary of the stats through ESPN's Cricinfo website is more holistic and gives a better summary of his career as a whole, in all formats of the game, in international and domestic cricket. Other sources with the same info are [1] and [2] Myopia123 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine at present with the information in a merged box. The text of "Cricket career" could be trimmed to reduce duplication of statistics: Noyster (talk), 14:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014

"please change date of Birth from "5 October, 1952" to "25 November, 1952" because it is his actual birth date as per reliable sources".


Umarbinarshad (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&oldid=635223056"