Talk:Imran Khan

Refs

• The end of the affair: How Imran Khan went from the Pakistan Army’s saviour to its nemesis Mohammed Hanif BBC

Bookku (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing source-based changes

@User talk:SahafatKaLover18 I have cited reliable sources for the changes that I made. Stop pretending like you have any editorial control over the page.

For waving the cypher, see: The Express Tribune. Insight 3 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@User talk:SahafatKaLover18 Instead of edit warring, talk here. Insight 3 (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply

@User:Insight 3 As contributors to Wikipedia, it is essential that we adhere to the guidelines and principles of neutrality. Our goal is to present information in a balanced and unbiased manner, allowing readers to form their own opinions based on the facts presented. Therefore, it is crucial to avoid using language that promotes a particular political stance or implies favoritism towards any entity, including the establishment.

Specifically, the phrases "Pro-Establishment phase" and "With the help of the establishment" carry connotations that may compromise the neutrality of the article. Similarly, it would be just as wrong for someone to now go on the Wikipedia pages of the current government and state that they are aligned with the same establishment.

The issue was YOUR claim about the cypher which was completely false. You claimed it was waved after he left office, which is incorrect because the letter was revealed on 27 March 2022 at a rally, his government ended on 9 April 2022.

I kindly request that you reconsider these terms and strive to maintain a neutral tone throughout your edits. It is vital to use language that is objective and supported by reliable sources. By doing so, we can ensure that the Wikipedia page of Imran Khan remains a reliable and unbiased source of information for all readers.

Nadeem F. Paracha, whom you're trying to use as a source, has expressed support for political opponents of Imran Khan, referring to them as "holding the key to a more sensible Pakistan." I would like you to take a look at the following statements:

Interviewer: "Do you think that political conservatives like Nawaz Sharif should have been supported by liberals and liberal parties at least on its stance with respect to the army?

Nadeem: "And yes, I agree that Sharif deserves as much of an ear from the liberals as do the PPP, ANP, and MQM. To me, these four parties hold the key to a more sensible Pakistan."SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Insights Reply

"Unbiased" doesn't mean what looks "good" to certain people and how can neutrality be achieved if the article consists only of the sources that are NOT critics of Imran Khan? Plus, the cipher thing is not just reported by Nadeem F. Paracha, there are plenty of national newspapers reporting the same thing. Anyway, I don't think this issue can resolved without the intervention of a third party. Insight 3 (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

My reply

Again, please reread what I said. The issue is not with the ciphers existence, you claimed it was "waved" when he wasn't Prime Minister anymore. The cipher was revealed on 27 March 2022, almost 2 weeks BEFORE he left office. Please use google translate because you seem to not understand what I'm saying. Also Nadeem is NOT a reliable source because you are using someone's opinion who CLEARLY has a bias to say that the establishment sponsored Imran's October 2011 rally, when Nadeem is on record saying he supports the political opponents of Khan. Clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I know nothing about the facts of this dispute. But SahafatKaLover18 cites Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, while claiming that a "source [which] has expressed support for political opponents of Imran Khan" is unacceptable. This seems contradictory. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I attached the source as well, those are his own words. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If dates were the real issue, you could have simply corrected them rather than removing the whole edit. Is not the case that you actually don't want the "cypher drama" in the section? Actually, by 27 March, Khan knew well his govt was just matter of days.

And why you removed this edit from the lead section: "On 9 May 2023, Khan was arrested on corruption charges at the High Court Islamabad. He blamed army for his arrest and allegedly encouraged his supporters for violent protests and attacks on military installations. As a result, the army responded strictly by apparently closing the so-called 'Project Imran Khan'" that had multiple citations?

And I'm taking your words "Please use google translate because you seem to not understand what I'm saying" as a personal insult. Insight 3 (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It was removed because there is no source for your claim of "encouraging for violent protests and attacks on military installations".

Again with the violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "Project Imran Khan" is a recently created term by political opponents. I don't understand why you're making such a big deal, the lead section already stated he was arrested and it is still there. For your satisfaction, I have now added him accusing the army chief of ordering his arrest. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@SahafatKaLover18 I advice you to take back your words by striking out (strike out) your objectionable sentence talking about google translate and all, that does not seem to be WP:CIVIL enough. And also WP:NPOV works differently than what you seem to assume.

Both of you need to provide summary describing what the content dispute is all about, that may help both of you avoid misunderstandings . Bookku (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

My summary

Basically I was reverting User:Insight 3's edits to restore the article to it's original state before the disruption occurred. Insight introduced biased language and terms like 'Pro-Establishment phase' and 'With the help of the establishment,' compromising neutrality when we should be avoiding language that promotes specific political stances. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not for personal complaint - that venue is different, we are asking summary of what is the content dispute point by point. Meaning there by which sentences and which sources are having disagreement, what is Insight 3's opinion and how your opinion differs from theirs. All explanation in most brief way. That helps others to help you. Bookku (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

My summary

I found some facts missing from the "No-confidence Motion" section and added the following text with reliable references:

On 8 March 2022, the opposition parties submitted a motion of no confidence against him to the National Assembly's secretariat. After being removed from the office, Khan claimed and waved a diplomatic cypher in the public, in violation of state secret legislation, from the US allegedly urging for action be taken to remove Khan in a coup. Though, later he changed his stance about the US conspiracy against his government. And in the lead section: On 9 May 2023, Khan was arrested on corruption charges at the High Court Islamabad. He blamed army for his arrest and allegedly encouraged his supporters for violent protests and attacks on military installations. As a result, the army responded strictly by apparently closing the so-called 'Project Imran Khan'.

The user:SahafatKaLover18 undid the edits by calling them based on biased sources. They undid my edits twice. The terms 'Pro establishment' and 'Project Imran' they objected on are being used in the press frequently.Then I stopped editing the page one-sidedly, otherwise they were quite willing to go into a full-fledged edit war. Insight 3 (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Insight 3 Keeping aside SahafatKaLover18's apprehensions aside for a while; those sentences/ phrases may need some re-paraphrasing or context as explained below.

As long as multiple WP:RS exists not much harm in using euphemistic phrases like 'Pakistan establishment' since we can provide context by linking the word Pakistan establishment with related WP article. But in some cases euphemistic wording 'Project Imran Khan' can be difficult to understand for uninitiated readers without adequate context.

These euphemistic words are used by media as much for criticism the other reason is pressure on media to not directly criticize Pakistan's defense leadership and or government in power. Wikipedia does not have that pressure and can take criticism on board without euphemism.

IMHO best way to handle is see how international news agencies like BBC Jazeera and all are handing the information and how they provide context to the reader.

'waved a diplomatic cypher' there is a related article you can see if you can take summary from there or what other sources are saying in that article. And also you can find good number of sources on talk page there which I had collected and still unused. Bookku (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to rephrase/paraphrase some lines and to give more adequate context for some info once my edits are reinstated. But as long as I'm citing reliable sources, someone shouldn't be removing my edits by calling them political biases. Insight 3 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This talk page already gives contentious topic notice and both sides are informed on talk page, so revert business without forming consensus on the talk page may lead to topic bans. Hence I suggest to focus on discussing your proposed updates sentence by sentence further since you know WP policies where as @SahafatKaLover18 and other users can help provide inputs and grammar improvement suggestions. I suppose after unless any other inputs come for my next subsection opinion that may help reduce misunderstandings and differences at least to an extant. Cheers to both of you. Bookku (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have updated and improved my previous edits. Now you and others may give your feedback and inputs. As far as the term "Project Imran Khan" is concerned, it is used so much in both national and international media that I think a separate page can be created upon it. Insight 3 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It was never used in international media and you didn't update it. Majority of it is still the same. There are NOT supposed to be any sources or citations in the lead there was a note that said so. Additionally, your claim of the military responding "strictly by apparently closing the so-called Project Imran" is an opinion and was never said by the military itself.

Moreover there is no evidence that Khan allegedly "won" the military's support and confidence which lead to 100,000 people showing up to a rally.

The original text was neutral and more concise. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that Khan "allegedly encouraged his supporters for violent protests and attacks on military installations." This is not true as someone in custody cannot encourage supporters to come out or attack military installations. No statement came from Khan until 12 May 2023, the day he was released. SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Political rise and fall of IMRAN KHAN, Nadeem and NPOV

Let us discuss Nadeem F. Paracha's article Political rise and fall of IMRAN KHAN, Dawn (newspaper).

My safer option where possible

Idk of other users but about Pakistan and generally South Asia I would prefer 2 plus 2 formulae i.e. two Reliable sources from Pakistani media (Generally Dawn plus The News International or Daily Jang the rest of English Pakistan media for supportive purposes; plus two international media sources like BBC NYT WaPo VOA DW etc. International sources may have their own systemic biases where as local national media can be under Capitalist or political pressure. Four sources can make the best balance. That does not mean a factual report on basis of single RS should not be taken into account, but I am just suggesting best practice to have less controversy. I have seen generally in two years time scholarly academic sources become available on Pakistan once that happens prominence should be given to academic sources.

Though many Wikipedians are found to be apprehensive of opinion pieces as WP:GREL indicates far from expressly banned as per WP:SECONDARY policy

.. A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. ..

• WP:NPOV:

.. all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ..

• Also ought to be read with WP:VOICE.

Above said Nadeem's article seems fairly take overview - just article heading has speculative part that this may be political end of Imran Khan factually no one can predict any one's political future hence any such prediction preferably be avoided in Wikipedia article at least in Wikipedia voice and last 3 paragraphs of that article seem to be written for supporting alleged prediction. If we leave News heading and bias in last 3 paragraphs and also balance 'Political rise and fall of Imran Khan' with other reliable sources with proper attributions avoiding WP:Voice as suggested above; IMHO balanced encyclopedic coverage of the opinions on political rise and fall of Imran Khan should not be difficult. Bookku (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Diverted discussion

I believe that a page ban should be placed on User:Insight 3. Let's take a look at their sandbox, which is filled with clear bias and emotionally charged claims.

"Imran Khan got married to Bushra Bibi despite her refusal."

"Tehreek-e-Insaaf's reaction was not a reaction of a political party but a reaction of a fan club that has turned into an extremist sect. This fan club doesn't think anyone is right except itself. Much of the vehemence in Tehreek-e-Insaaf's reaction was actually the result of the training that the party leadership did through its statements. As long as the military generals were political helpers of Imran Khan, Imran Khan used to sing songs of these generals, when the generals turned their backs, Imran Khan started threatening them by naming them." SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is for both users:

• First thing first just Assume Good Faith focus sentence by sentence discussion on this talk page without personal aspersions.
• Discussions relating personal behavior has to be limited to user talk pages, WP:ANI and WP:ARE. IMO this is basically content dispute not fair to personalize at least at this stage. Personalizing can boom rang too so avoiding that is strongly advised.

@SahafatKaLover18 generally sandboxes and drafts are transitional and avoided for judgements the better. Bookku (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@SahafatKaLover18 I'm wondering from where you got all those passages, there is nothing like this in any of my sandboxes. Will you give us some link? Insight 3 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you genuinely forgot or are lying, they are still up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Insight_3/sandbox_1 SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I am preparing a draft and I translated an Urdu source and pasted it there as it is. I even didn't fully read it. This is meant to be trimmed, copy edited, and paraphrased further. This is the practice sandboxes are there for. This is so immature to draw conclusions from someone's sandbox. Insight 3 (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Insight 3 and @SahafatKaLover18

I request both of you to read WP:BLP and WP:BLPTALK. I advice Insight 3 not to repeat statements like ".. got married to .. despite her refusal." without substantive WP:RS citation.

@SahafatKaLover18 Policy at WP:BLPTALK seem to suggest to avoid copy pasting of unconfirmable BLP violations even for discussion and hence I suggest redaction of the same as per WP:BLPTALK.

And also please make a point to take such discussions not related to this article (Specially having personal behaviour angle) be discussed at user talk pages. Diverting from main topics is much waste of energy of every one. And come back sentence by sentence discussion for this article. Bookku (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-consensus

1) As the user SahafatKaLover18 didn't change the text: On 8 March 2022, the opposition parties submitted a motion of no confidence against him to the National Assembly's secretariat.[369][370] On 27 March 2022, Khan waved a diplomatic cypher from US in the public,[371] claiming that it demands to remove Khan's government in a coup.[372] Though, later he changed his stance about the US conspiracy against his government.[373][374] ... so I assume we have arrived at a consensus here.

2) They made changes to my edit in the lead section and I don't insist on including the word 'Project Imran'. So this is resolved too.

3) But they have completely removed the edit and section heading: Pro-establishment phase:Around 2011, Khan won support and confidence of the military establishment and as a result, on 30 October 2011, Khan addressed more than 100,000 supporters in Lahore, ...... which I insist to be there, as there are plenty of evidences to show that there was a "Pro establishment phase" in Khan's career and the successful gathering of October 2011 was not without establishment's help.The Express Tribune, BBC Therefore, it must be mentioned in Khan's political career. Insight 3 (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Section refs

References

WP:RPPI

@ WP:RPPI I requested admins visit and asses need for full protection of the article to form the consensus on the article talk page first. Since well intentioned confirmed users from both side have not understood the point that preferably they form consensus at talk page first before editing the article. Thats leading to situation of edit war. At this stage rather than action on individual users fully protecting the article may benefit consensus forming at the talk page, but still admins may arrive at better judgement after own visit to talk page discussion and article edit history. Bookku (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Update - Imran Khan arrested today

173.19.29.115 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

NPOV violations

This article violates NPOV. It reads like a puff piece.

For example, when Khan ignored Putin's war crimes and violations of international order by invading another country, this article describes this as "refusing to submit" to Western pressure. Lol. MBUSHIstory (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

~ MBUSHIstory (talk) MBUSHIstory (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)