Talk:2024 Pakistani general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Detailed whitepaper on rigging

PTI released a comprehensive whitepaper on election rigging (not sure if its official) but its covering pre-poll and poll rigging with references from reliable independent sources. This white paper seems valuable and could serve as a basis for expanding this article further, although the whitepaper itself cannot be used as a reference. Saqib (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is official and is being released by the PTI team, I think it is a good idea to use information from it on the Allegations of Rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election page. Titan2456 (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Imran Khan image

@WikiEnthusiast1001 we should be adding the most contemporary/recent images, the most recent one is from June 2023. Titan2456 (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wallu2 and Titan2456: Guys please stop your edit warring over the image of Khan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wallu2 Agreed. Better to provide reasons for why to use each image here, before making changes to the main page. I think we should use the other image as it is higher quality. Titan2456 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

By elections

Add by election of 21 April 2024 create new page plss 93.147.6.158 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ainty Painty, Muzzzmuzzmuzzz, and Masterpha: We certainly need a standalone page dedicated to the by-election held today, covering the 21 seats. Despite the small number of seats, this is a significant by-election. Would anyone of you be interested in taking the lead on creating it? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I was hesitant since last time I created October 2018 Pakistani by-elections, I could not update it and no one else did it as well. Also, there is an issue of having only 25 constituencies and that too dispersed among five different assemblies. I believe there are only 2/3 National Assembly seats up for grabs. My suggestion would be to have a separate section under current articles for respective assemblies to cover these results. I don’t think there is a need for five more articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Pakistani by-elections – Ainty Painty (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

National Assembly shown

Like done to British elections, I am adding the National Assembly after the election underneath the election map to every Pakistani election. Currently, the 2024, 2018, 2013, 1985, 1970 and 1977 elections all have National Assembly depictions and I will add them, putting this here so I know if anyone opposes this. Titan2456 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there – the section is for maps, not parliamentary diagrams. Parliamentary diagrams go on the results table. Cheers, Number 57 21:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit misleading to say the other articles have it in the infobox (which suggests they have been there for some time) when you only added them to the articles today. Number 57 21:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

When did I say other election articles have it, it is done to every single British election, and Pakistan and Britain share relatively the same electoral system. Also, the main point of a general in Pakistan is to elect the National assembly so it should be shown. Titan2456 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You said "Currently, the 2024, 2018, 2013, 1985, 1970 and 1977 elections all have National Assembly depictions". Number 57 21:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying it should not be shown – I am saying it should be in the results table, where I have moved it to. Cheers, Number 57 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstood 😅, they dont have depictions added, they have depictions (images on commins) to be added, the rest of the elections dont have any National Assembly images. Titan2456 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! Titan2456 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah my bad, apologies. Hope the other point makes sense though. Number 57 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Pti just got back reserved seats

We should add this since the current chart is now outdated Ricky dicks (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Previously, I didn't object to your labeling PTI as SIC across the articles because I've been less active in editing election or even politics-related articles, focusing instead on NPP. However, given the recent backing of PTI's claim as a parliamentary party by the Supreme Court full bench, I suggest we update our articles accordingly. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib Please do not jump the gun; it is too early to do that. The ruling has been challenged, and the National Assembly website still lists SIC members as SIC members. Once they update, we can update as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

PTI/SIC current seats in the national assembly are 81 as per National Assembly website. PMLN has 107 seats. Wrong information being displayed on the page. Please correct this. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Partially completed, the seats include those for minorities and women, but not yet for independents. Reserved seats have not yet been allocated to PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Thank you. But please recheck PMLN seats 108 not 98 as 10 independents joined PMLN after the elections within 3 days as per election rules. Current National assembly strength of PMLN is 108= 75 won+10 joined +23 resreves. If Supreme court decision is revised based on reviw petition then It will be 124 but currently it is 108 not 98. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not closely following this page but I'm curious if information is being updated based on references—if so, I haven't seen it yet. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Here we go the desired reference from Pakistan national assembly official website [[1]]. PMLN 108. Other parties current position is PPP (68), MQM-P (21), PML(Q) (5), IPP (4), BAP (1), NP (1), PML(Z) (1), SIC (45), PTI (38), Independent (8), JUI-F (8), BNP-M (1), MWM (1), PKMAP (1), Suspended and review filed in Supreme Court (24) 1 Vacant after Death of PTI MNA recently. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

And why do we need to update the infobox based on developments post-election? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Reserve seats and Independents decision who Join a party are part of election process and same is always reflected in each Pakistani election article. See PTI won 114 general seats but we put 149 seats (same principle) for PTI in [[2]]. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Color

@Titan2456 The color on the map needs correction. Although these individuals were supported by PTI, they were independent, not PTI members, so they should be represented as independents. Adjust the map accordingly, not the color in the infobox. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not know how to work with SVGs + What should the color of the other non-PTI-backed Independents be then? Titan2456 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope this doesn’t descend into another edit war but I think would be overkill to first request to edit the election map and then contact someone who has Photoshop or some SVG editor to edit the map and then change the color of PTI-Inds from red to gray. PTI Independents didn’t have an official color, nor gray nor red, so it would be easier to just put a color that matches with the map. And yeah, as I said the grey color already matches with the non-PTI backed Independents. Hope this is solved. Titan2456 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I can assist with editing SVG files—just let me know if anyone need my assistance. Also, please explain what changes need to be made. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is resolved I am pretty sure, I think we decided to just keep it red. Titan2456 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Now that you mention editing SVGs, if you have free time to do so, the File:2024 Khyber Pakthunkhwa provincial election result.svg, which is used on the 2024 KPK election has mistakenly listed Pervaiz Khattak's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Parliamentarians as Awami National Party, it is a pretty big error. Titan2456 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Titan2456,  Done— Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess it is my bad for not explaining what to edit well. Thanks but you edited the wrong thing, you were supposed to keep Pervaiz Khattak but remove ANP, because it is listed twice, just add the PTI-P name instead of ANP in the pink bar. No problem. Titan2456 (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Titan2456,  Fixed— Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

93 seats instead of 39

@Saqib@SheriffIsInTown I am changing the seat numbers back to 93 instead of 39, the reason for this is that both PTI and PTI backed Independents are counted as one bloc in the elections by news reports at the time. The SCP and ECP decision to give 39 is a post election decision, if post election decisions should be counted, then by that logic, the seats after the motion of no confidence against Imran Khan should be in the 2018 election. All news reports at the time of the election should be our source and all of the following claim that 93 seats were won.

Al Jazeera - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/12/imran-khans-pti-scores-major-win-in-pakistan-battle-for-reserved-seats#:~:text=Consequently%2C%20PTI%20candidates%20had%20to,was%20third%20with%2054%20seats.

Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistans-khan-backed-independents-lead-vote-count-concludes-website-2024-02-11/

Hindustan Times - https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-election-result-imran-khan-loyalists-at-top-but-may-not-form-government-why-101707649143287.html

Wikipedia is not only for covering the de-jure situation but also for covering the de-facto situation, which is that PTI candidates filed their nominations as PTI, but were forced to run as Independents. Officially they won 93 seats I will add a footnote saying saying only 39 seats were recognized as PTI but 93 is the main number of seats won. As per WP:ONUS I can undo this revision without reaching consensus with other editors but consensus is needed to restore it, but I am leaving this note here before I change the seats from 39 to 93 and from PTI to PTI-Ind. so that I can avoid an edit war and instead we can discuss any opposition to this move with civility here. Titan2456 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re misinterpreting the details. The SCP and ECP decisions, although made after the election, pertain to the election itself. You cannot have it both ways, as the saying goes, "you can’t have your cake and eat it too." They acknowledged that 39 individuals declared their affiliation with PTI when filing their nomination papers, making it retroactively effective. Since they stated their affiliation before the election, it is recognized as PTI. You can’t compare apples with oranges by equating this with the post-vote of no confidence situation, which was unrelated to the 2018 election. I’m reverting it to 39, as the others are considered independent based on the SCP and ECP decisions, and this recent update supersedes any information from older sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The SCP and ECP order declares 39 seats as PTI in the assembly, not that 39 seats were won by PTI during the election. The contemporary sources highlight that 93 Independent seats were won during the election this is de-facto, which should be the main priority. The National Assembly article should state that 39 individuals are under PTI, but PTI-backed independents and PTI candidates themselves formed a single bloc during the election. All 93 Independents voted for Omar Ayub Khan as Prime Minister in a united bloc. The sources are not outdated; they are contemporary to the election. The SCP order does not claim that the people of Pakistan voted for 39 PTI seats. It merely indicates that out of the 93 Independent candidates, those who have filed papers confirming their affiliation with PTI should be counted as PTI members. If there is no further opposition, I will revert the seat count to 93, as the Independent-PTI bloc won that many seats, and this information remains relevant. This article focuses on the election results, not the subsequent composition of the assembly. It is a clear fact that PTI-backed candidates won 93 seats. Titan2456 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Titan2456, I'm not following this article closely, as my last edit was in May. However, now that you've pinged me, I'll subscribe to this thread and keep an eye on how it develops. Though I do have to say, what you suggested is somewhat in line with my thoughts. I might add my 2cents later if necessary. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statement: when the nation's highest court acknowledged only 39 individuals as affiliated with PTI, it was because the others did not declare their affiliation in their nomination papers. It’s common sense—if someone doesn’t declare their affiliation with a specific party, they cannot be considered as affiliated with it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You did not refer to my previous point, this article is about the election itself not the composition of the assembly after the election, PTI Independents were one bloc during the election, the SCP ruling hasn’t said they weren’t, the ruling just says that 39 seats in the assembly right now are PTI, not that PTI won 39 seats in the election. Titan2456 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And, you are not following me, when SCP states that 39 are PTI MNAs because they declared their affiliation with PTI in their nomination papers, others are not because they simply did not declare their affiliation in their nomination papers. When are nomination papers filed, before the election. So this decision becomes about their status in the election not just the status in the assembly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

All 93 declared their affiliation as PTI in their nomination papers, ECP rejected them and forced them to be Independent but the SCP reinstated 39 as PTI, it doesn’t change the fact that 93 PTI affiliates won the February election. Titan2456 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, they did not. The ruling of the country’s highest court clearly disagrees with you. If everyone had declared their affiliation, the court would have confirmed your stated number, but that is evidently not the case. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I sent 3 news reports stating that 93 PTI-backed Independents won the elections. The SCP ruling was based on the distribution of reserve seats and after election affiliation of seats. The facts are: In the elections, 93 Independents won their seats and news reports clearly state that they were PTI-backed. You are making it seem that I am siding against the SCP, which I am not. By putting 39 PTI seats you are excluding the largest bloc of the elections which is very, very misleading. If the SCP ruling was an election by itself then you can put that 39 seats were won by PTI, but this is about the 2024 February election and the most votes went to PTI-backed Independents, officially 93 not 39. Titan2456 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

SCP ruling is about the February 2024 election. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It nowhere says by the SCP that PTI won 39 seats in the election, it says out of the 93 PTI-backed Independent seats won, 39 are officially recognized as PTI, that still means that the 93 backed Independents won the election and the 39 are for assembly composition purposes, not how many seats were won in the election. This is what I’m saying that the SCP ruling number should be included in the assembly articles, not the election, the election is about how many seats won. Titan2456 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t need to explicitly state that 39 won the election. By acknowledging that 39 declared their PTI affiliation in their nomination papers, it implies the same. If others didn’t declare their affiliation, they can’t be counted as PTI members winning those seats. If the Supreme Court determined that only 39 declared their affiliation at the time of the election, adding more would be like distorting the results in favor of that party and that is what you are doing here by working overtime. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am restoring it to PTI-Ind. not PTI. They are officially Independents but are backed by PTI that is what I have been saying and the sources I sent are saying. I never said they are PTI members the sources I sent say they are Independents backed by PTI. You also overlooked my last two points so I'll write them here again: This is what I’m saying that the SCP ruling number should be included in the assembly articles, not the election, the election is about how many seats won. Titan2456 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I said this before, all 93 candidates filed for PTI but were given an Independent status, and the SCP chose to accept 39. It isn't like that the remaining Independents were random fellows Pakistanis decided to elect, they filed as PTI but were rejected, hence we can include both de-facto and de-jure which would be written as PTI-Ind. By only covering de-jure you are excluding half of the elections results. Titan2456 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve made my stance clear, and it differs from yours. This discussion has reached a stalemate. The Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t arbitrary. If they recognized 39, they would have recognized more if warranted. The reason they didn’t accept more than 39 is that the others didn’t declare their affiliation in their nomination papers. Therefore, the remaining elected individuals can’t be considered PTI members or supported by PTI as you claim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If it is a stalemate then as per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD I can undo a new inclusion not having consensus, so I can undo your edit of making it 39 seats and I can make it 93, and you must reach consensus with me/other editors to restore your revision, I will do that by the end of the day, for now I would ask @Saqib to give his third opinion now. Titan2456 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus doesn’t mean that new information can’t be updated when it becomes available. There was no prior consensus as well. PTI-Ind were included arbitrarily without consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It was under consensus before, as there were discussions on how to represent PTI or Independents while the election was happening. I am following through with WP:BRD, please do not undo my reversion as it will turn into an edit war in violation of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, If you think that your edit changing the seats to 39 is “updating” or “modifying” the article with new content that is your opinion, as long as other editors like me and Saqib disagree and there is no consensus then the new edit/content will be removed. Have a good day, no hard feelings. Titan2456 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Titan2456, I made it clear that your suggestion aligns somewhat with my thoughts. And if our opinions don’t matter, then there’s no point in continuing this argument on this tp. If there’s a deadlock, feel free to take it to WP:DRN. I might join there, if needed. I wish I could focus on this more closely, but I’m currently enjoying patrolling pages and catching UPEs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if @Number 57: is around, but they would be the best person to provide a 3rd opinion and enforce it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

SheriffIsInTown Don’t take this comment the wrong way,, but this article is under WP:1RR due to its contentious nature and I’ve seen you make 3 reverts in the last 24 hrs here, here and here despite the ongoing discussion. I’m not interested to report you, but you need to calm down and stop acting like a real sheriff when you’re clearly not one. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

So, I am the only one who is reverting, why are you singling me out? Moreover, there are only two reverts within 24 hours, the third one is outside of 24 hours. stop acting like a real sheriff when you’re clearly not one. This was unwarranted, you could have ended your comment before that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides Saqib’s comment, I told you to please stop restoring your edit because there is no consensus between editors, kindly stop restoring it or it is a violation of WP:ONUS, WP:IDHT and WP:BRD and will result in an edit war and the whole point of the discussion was to avoid one. Titan2456 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456 These policies apply to both of us not just to me. There was no consensus to begin-with, the way PTI-IND was added, there was a lot of opposition at the time. As for your claim that you are trying to avoid an edit war, you are clearly not if you keep reverting again and again. You cannot keep restoring outdated information in the light of the SCP decision. This is not settled, you can keep claiming consensus while there was none. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus was reached after a discussion, see Talk:2024 Pakistani general election/Archives/ 1 mainly the Talk:2024 Pakistani general election/Archives/ 1#Should PTI be included in the Infobox section and other sections. Titan2456 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, Look, I’m not here to argue. I just want to point out that you’ve clearly breached the 3RR, regardless of your so-called reasons for doing so. I don’t have anything more to add at this point, nor am I interested in continuing the argument about the content dispute here, as there’s clearly a WP:IDHT issue. If @Titan2456 takes it to WP:DRN, I’ll join them there, but not here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456 and @SheriffIsInTown I am following this page for months now and I am seeing Saqib using all possible tricks to favor a political party PTI. Current seats of PMLN are 108 and PTI is 39 thats what all sources newspapers articles are telling us after supremecourt decision and its partial implementation by election commision. But sad to see a non professional and Biased behaviour by Saqib time and again and using all forums first against me then against others. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

LingoSouthAsia, Saqib using all possible tricks to favor a political party PTI. I didn’t realize I was so influential. But sad to see a non professional and Biased behaviour by Saqib time and again and using all forums first against me then against others. Calling me non-professional is a bit rich. WP isn’t exactly a boardroom, after all. Anyway, you might want to address this in the appropriate forum, like WP:ANI. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

LingoSouthAsia, That is a completely false statement, I cited multiple reports counting PTI-Independents as one bloc during the elections, the 93 seat bloc was the largest bloc of the elections which you simply can’t exclude. I would suggest checking the sources I put before throwing out such allegations. Reuters, Al Jazeera all reports count PTI Independents as one bloc that won 93 seats. If you can show me one report that says PTI won 38 seats during the elections instead of gaining 38 seats as part of a separate case after the elections, then I will concede. Titan2456 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen and Bbb23: You previously blocked LingoSouthAsia for making false claims and harassment on tp's. I’d like to highlight that they’re now making similar false allegations here. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Again Saqib being personal and tries to block everyone he thinks is against his views/edits. This is a simple content dispute so please stick to this. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, what would you like to change about the article, state your case. Titan2456 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, this was a simple content dispute between me and SheriffIsInTown. If you look at the discussion, no one claimed the other was pro-PTI or anti-PTI, you are the first one to point your finger and claim someone is biased. Regardless, it was decided to keep independents backed by PTI at 93 seats. You can re-open the discussion if you want. Titan2456 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to Saqib request the Page edit rights were protected to Senior users only. That is why I have already made a Edit reuest section on this Talk page. I proposed the changes based on the national assembly official website that PMLN has 108 seats so kindly correct that 98 figure but As is the history of article and Talk page, Saqib started confronting and when I gave him proper reply he just simply kept quite and No one honoured my simple genuine request that gave me a feeler as if he is not a user who is ready to accept any valid source and have some kind of political biases. Now he is using same tactics against SheriffIsInTown in this section showing if SheriffIsInTown is edit warring. Not fair that is why I suppourted SheriffIsInTown here. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, there are two problems with that, 1: The National Assembly website isn’t even updated and 2: This page is about how many seats won in the election which the election news reports clearly state, not the current NA webiste, if you were not aware in Pakistani politics it takes a while to form an assembly, usually Independents join other parties and reserved seats are to be handed out so we can’t put the current structure of the assembly here, its not just me and Saqib who are saying this, I am pretty sure SheriffIsInTown can correlate this as well. Titan2456 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)