Talk:2024 Pakistani general election/Archives/ 2

Independent joining

Hi @Muzzzmuzzmuzzz, Number 57, Saad Ali Khan Pakistan, Wallu2, SheriffIsInTown, and RaiHassan1: @Wiki.0hlic, Titan2456, Alexanderkowal, VosleCap, War Wounded, Borgenland, Mmmmmhzhz, and 沁水湾: @Aréat, Saqib, and Masterpha: do you have a suggestion to put them? Panam2014 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Care to elaborate please? --Saqib (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib: in the results section. Lots joined PMLN, SIC, PPPP. Panam2014 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Why not. --Saqib (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I just point out how ridiculous this current infobox is. The precedent from past election pages was to show the number of seats of each party minus the independents who joined. This infobox seems to show total seat numbers including all independents joining afterwards. This includes 81 (!) who joined SIC despite them receiving no votes.

For consistency across pakistani election pages it is now a necessity to change the policy on infobox seat numbers. We can either only show elected general seats, or change all election infoboxes to show their total after independents join.

I believe only directly elected general seats should be shown on the infobox. These are the seats for which polling is held on election day. This is the fairest option because under Pakistani electoral law reserved seat allocation is influenced by the joining of elected members to that party after an election, meaning that these seats are decided after election day. Regardless, the current policy used for election pages from 2002 to 2018 is ridiculous. маsтегрнатаLк 11:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree fully with this. The independents who join parties after elections can be mentioned in the text, but the infobox should show the seats as elected. Cheers, Number 57 11:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Masterpha - Seconded. Infobox should strictly keep with the direct election results. Anything else is extraneous and can be mentioned with context in the remainder of the article. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 11:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's concerning that SheriffIsInTown hasn't responded despite my attempt to engage above. I'm also puzzled why SheriffIsInTown is rushing to make these contentious changes repeatedly without prior discussion. For now, I've reverted the edits. Hope we can engage in a proper discussion. --Saqib (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Because I took a short break for a few hours. Everyone has personal commitments, so please allow us some time to respond. Your revert is hasty and erroneous, the infobox now shows PTI 93 while they have only 81 who joined SIC and for other parties, it shows all including independents and reserved seats. The party with 93 seats is at number 1 while the one with 108 is number 2. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you've been actively editing after I started this thread. However, I understand you haven't had a chance to reply yet. That's not a big deal. Back to topic, while the inclusion or exclusion of reserved seats in the infobox is a separate matter, I suggest we hold off on updating the infobox until the ECP makes its final decision on whether they'll allocate reserved seats to PTI/SIC or not. --Saqib (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I made a few edits after I came back from break because I wanted to get ITN through for which I had the material ready beforehand as I had a plan for this for last few days, so it was quick for me because I only had a short amount of time but there is no reason to doubt your opponent’s intentions in every discussion like you did above, sometimes we should assume good faith, as well.

It's concerning that SheriffIsInTown hasn't responded despite my attempt to engage above. I'm also puzzled why SheriffIsInTown is rushing to make these contentious changes repeatedly without prior discussion.

That aside, we do not hold off anything, we update when situation changes per sources, once ECP will make the decision regarding reserved seats for SIC then we will update again to reflect that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all, PTI explicitly stated that their alliance with SIC was formed for legal reasons & while technically these lawmakers are now affiliated with SIC, it's important to consider the broader context here. People still view them as PTI or PTI backed lawmakers. Even the media still referring to them as "PTI-backed". Per WP:V, if the majority of reliable sources refer to these candidates as PTI-backed, and this strengthen the case for listing them as such in the infobox. In terms of WP policy, NPOV policy encourages us to represent viewpoints fairly and without bias so listing them as SIC lawmakers might introduce a bias in the article, IMO though. --Saqib (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The rationale behind their membership in SIC is inconsequential; it could be legal or otherwise. The crucial point is that these individuals have become part of SIC. How they are perceived, whether as PTI or PTI-supported, is subject to personal interpretation. Media outlets generally label them as SIC members, with the exception of ARY, which tends to associate them with PTI/SIC. It's worth noting that ARY has been always biased in favor of PTI. Therefore, the interpretation of both the public and the media boils down to individual perspectives. Regarding sources, only those published after Independents joined SIC are relevant, as pre-joining sources hold no significance in this context. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you've asked for coverage/references published after PTI-backed lawmakers joined SIC, I'm providing below a selection of recent news stories. I believe you'll agree that all of these sources are reputable and independent. They consistently refer to PTI-backed lawmakers as such. These examples demonstrate that even after joining SIC, these lawmakers are still widely recognized as PTI-backed. And please note I've provided only a few examples here, but I can offer more if needed. Additionally, I can also provide references from reputable foreign news sources if and when required. --Saqib (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources you provided for at the time of PTI backed lawmakers joining SIC, not after they have joined so off course the sources will call them PTI backed independents but you are missing the next point which is their destination party Sunni Ittehad Council. Your interpretation of sources is totally wrong. Here are excerpts from some of the sources you cited:

Sunni Ittehad Council adopted by the PTI-backed winning independents

(please note the point here PTI independents have adopted SIC)

PTI-backed independents — under the banner of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)

(note the point PTI independents are under the banner of SIC, banner has been changed)

Past precedent ‘might hand’ SIC reserved seats in assemblies

(this one’s heading is good enough, it clearly mentions SIC)

These sources all contradict your position, as they demonstrate that PTI independents have indeed joined SIC, indicating a shift in their allegiance. They are no longer considered PTI independents but members of their new party, SIC. I can provide additional examples from the sources you provided to support this assertion.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: since you have insisted on the latter option (having infoboxes to show party position after independents joining and reserved seats being allocated), and since this appears to be what we are now going with (I have other things to do with my time than to insist on my position only to be met with rude dismissals), I insist that you now change all other Pakistan election pages to show party position after independents join. For example, to have the 2013 PMLN total as 185, to have the 2018 PTI total as 158, etc, for all election pages. To do anything other than this would show inconsistency across pages. маsтегрнатаLк 16:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masterpha: That would be akin to WP:GAMING. --Saqib (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

References

You think my interpretation of sources is wrong but I also disagree with your remarks that these lawmakers are no longer PTI lawmakers. I also differ with your claim that the references I provided above were published before those lawmakers declared their affiliation with SIC. While it's true that some sources may refer to them as SIC lawmakers or PTI-SIC lawmakers, but there are still plenty of latest (post-25 February) sources that referred these lawmakers as PTI lawmakers. I believe it's important to consider the breadth of sources available and not cherry-pick those that support a particular viewpoint. I also welcome input from others on this. --Saqib (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Another column should be added showing Independents joined which shows Independents joined which party.

Almost all of the Independents have joined PML (N) only 1 PTI backed independent from Lahore have joined PMLN. All PTI backed Independents have signed affidavit to represent their seats in the parliament and provincial assembly as Sunni Ittehad Council. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The majority of sources focus on PTI independents joining SIC, thus they mention that PTI independents have become part of SIC. However, it's essential to note that these sources are highlighting their affiliation with SIC as their new alliance. While I didn't cherry-pick, providing a quote from each of the 26 links you shared isn't feasible, so I offered three examples as a representative sample.

@Borgenland @Number 57 Since Saqib and myself have a disagreement on interpretation of the sources, would any one you be willing to volunteer to go through the sources and provide your independent opinion, I will accept your interpretation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I am of the opinion of sticking to what the ballot papers say. But given how horribly weird this election has become, the most assertive proposal that I can suggest is to make a footnote for any addition to the infobox explaining the PTI connection. Borgenland (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Borgenland, so, you're suggesting that you'll prioritize what ECP wanted over what majority independent sources report? --Saqib (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In theory, but I liked the previous edit were there was a PTI-affiliated independents mentioned in the infobox, with an footnote of course. Borgenland (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'previous edit'? The current infobox lists PTI-affiliated independents with a footnote and I also support this version. --Saqib (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I also support this version PTI-affiliated independents Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Whichever version had that in the infobox, there were so many back and forth reversions that I can no longer determine which revision. Borgenland (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland My request was for assistance in interpreting the sources Saqib provided. Saqib and I disagreed on this matter. Saqib believes that the sources continue to refer to them as PTI independents even after they joined SIC. However, my argument is that the sources only label them as PTI independents in the context of reporting their new affiliation with SIC (for example "PTI independents join Sunni Ittehad Council"), indicating their subsequent membership in SIC. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just saw the 3 refs. For the record though, did the SIC field its own candidates in the elections? Borgenland (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I never mentioned that the sources refer to them as PTI independents, but rather as PTI-backed independents. @Borgenland: Let me clarify. Sheriff suggests removing the mention of PTI-backed independents and replacing it with SIC in the infobox. I advocate for listing them as PTI-backed independents. And no, SIC didn't field a single candidate. In fact, its own leader and chairman Sahibzada Hamid Raza ran independently.--Saqib (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To add onto Saqib's comment: SIC has been very loyal to PTI and has never tried to assert itself as being seperate. The party head Sahibzada Hamid Raza was elected to the National Assembly for Constituency NA-104 (Faisalabad-X) with PTI support. маsтегрнатаLк 17:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not about one party’s loyalty to another, this is about their official position and official position has been that members we call PTI backed independents ran as simple independents on the books and then since those were not officially representatives of PTI, they had to join another party to get reserved seats or whatever the reason so they officially joined SIC. Despite our denial of this reality, eventually reality ought to win. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You argument seems to be that that de jure PTI MNAs are now part of SIC so this is a 'reality' that we need to now accomodate. De facto however, these MNAs are affiliated with PTI for all intents and purposes. This is the reality. Putting them on the infobox as having been elected as SIC (which is the implication of putting SIC in the infobox) is the furthest thing from reality. It also implies that these MNAs are genuinely affiliated with SIC as opposed to only joining for the purpose of reserved seats.

This is why I am strongly of the view that we should only put general seats in the infobox. The general election itself consists of an election to the general seats after a specified campaign period. Reserved seat allocation and the fate of independents is a process that occurs in the aftermath of the general election, not the general election itself. The fact alone that the decision to accomodate PTI into SIC in the assemblies occured weeks after polling day should tell you why this is simply the incorrect thing to do. Sherriff is wrong to try and paint this as 'upholding reality' when it is in fact the furthest thing from doing so. маsтегрнатаLк 22:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Reality is not what you state, reality cannot be changed by writing meaningless essays. Reality is what their official status is, reality is what PTI independents chose for themselves and they chose SIC. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

When you refer to a logical argument as a "meaningless essay" it's hard to keep assuming good faith. маsтегрнатаLк 09:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You are right, it is hard to maintain good faith when you were the one maintaining this information in infoboxes of past elections over the years. It is okay, people change their mind but questions arise when people change their mind all of a sudden very conveniently when they see that if they kept independents and reserved seats in the calculation of final seats, it might affect the inclusion of Imran Khan in the infobox then they start changing all the past election pages calling the system as "ridiculous". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up contributions made 7 years ago (?) to try and prove your point is silly and once again, hard to assume in good faith. I was under the (false) impression at the time that reserved seat allocation was not influenced by actions that took place after election day. My point still stands. маsтегрнатаLк 10:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And for the record. This isn't about Imran Khan's inclusion in the infobox, that is a seperate issue. I believe Gohar Ali Khan should be on the infobox as he led the PTI for the election campaign. This discussion is about how we display seat counts on the infobox. маsтегрнатаLк 10:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, issue has gotten into difference in source interpretation and yes I meant the same thing by PTI independents, I just shortened it a bit for brevity. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

SIC have 81 seats despite no votes is because the group (PTI-IND) and the leader (Imran Khan) you are trying to keep in infobox decided that their members will join SIC. People who voted to elect those members knew that those candidates are running as independents and they must join a party after being elected so people voted for them trusting whatever choice they will make after being elected would be considered people’s choice, we cannot make a whole section (independents and reserved seats) irrelevant. Do you have any source stating that prime minister required majority of directly elected members (134) instead of majority of all members (169)? When Imran himself do not have a problem having his people join SIC and when those members do not have a problem joining SIC then why we as editors have a problem reflecting that change? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Who on earth claimed that 134 is required for a PM election? 134 is a majority of the directly elected general constituencies. My source for that is mathematics. 266/2 + 1 = 134 маsтегрнатаLк 14:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple math does not work in every situation, in a parliamentary election situation having a majority means being able to have enough votes to elect a prime minister. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

My point being that on election day, the majority is 134 for the seats up for election, which the electorate cast their ballots for. As to your point on parliamentary majorities, 134 is sufficient because if every candidate elected was elected on a party ticket or if all independent members were to join a political party this is the number they would need to be able to win a majority if you were to include reserved seats. If a party was to win 134 seats on election day they would win a parliamentary majority through reserved seat allocation (generally speaking - this of course doesn't apply to when a party is denied the right to contest as a political party and their candidates). This is why the media generally has used the majority number of general seats as the goal for political parties - between 2002 and 2018 this was 272. Nonetheless, since you asked, here are some references for you. Tribune and Al Jazeera saying 134 for 2024. BBC and The Independent saying 137 for 2018. маsтегрнатаLк 17:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe make a footnote at the SIC in the infobox for an explanation. Borgenland (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The assumption made here is incorrect. According to the Pakistani constitution, when a voter casts a ballot for an independent candidate, they do so knowingly, entrusting that candidate to join a party of their choice after the election. While this system may seem unconventional, it is part of Pakistan's electoral process. Despite personal preferences, as editors, we are bound to document facts rather than try to right great wrongs.

Some editors here are seeking to address what they perceive as a significant flaw in the electoral process, particularly regarding independents affiliating with parties after the election. They advocate for this change to be reflected not only in current election pages but also in historical pages as it affects inclusion/exclusion of a popular leader in the infobox of the 2024 page. However, altering Wikipedia content to accommodate personal opinions or preferences is not permissible.

In Pakistan's electoral process, independents contest elections aware that they will align with a party post-election. Voters, in turn, place their trust in independent candidates, knowing they will join a party of their choice afterward. Subsequently, once independents affiliate with parties, reserved seats are allocated. The election of the prime minister occurs after this process, requiring a majority of all seats, including reserved ones.

It is essential to maintain the accuracy of Wikipedia articles by documenting the entire electoral process, including the role of independents and reserved seats, even if it may affect the representation of popular leaders in infoboxes. Therefore, historical pages should also reflect this process accurately. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Independents are not required to join a political party and can stay as independents if they choose to do so, and they have done so in the past. Just because they haae the right to do so does not mean that they have to. Please provide a source for a compulsion of independents to join parties? маsтегрнатаLк 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The system in Pakistan (which I personally do not like when it comes to independents and reserved seats) works differently than any other country. Even if Independents can remain independents (which requires some research), the option to join a party is still there and a voter must keep that in mind because it often happens. Moreover, reserved seats are allocated after independents join a party, we cannot render this whole situation irrelevant just because we do not like the system. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The facts of this situation are that the independents elected with PTI backing were known to have PTI support and ran campaigns on the PTI manifesto with the backing of PTI leadership. This is why media outlets have listed PTI winners as 'PTI-backed independents', not just independents. маsтегрнатаLк 14:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but when voters went to polls on 8 February, they knew that they are voting for a candidate who is running independent and they will have to join a party afterwards, they put their trust in them with their vote making a statement that they trust their chosen member in whatever party they join afterwards. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The text above is copied from my talk page. As pointed out there (a) no-one is righting wrongs and (b) no-one knows which (if any) party the independent will join.

However, it seems you are in the clear minority here, so unless anyone else speaks in favour of your preferred way of doing it, then I will reinstate Masterpha's in the near future. Number 57 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Same opinion. Panam2014 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not about being in minority or majority as Wikipedia is not a vote. Some of the editors above have basically no argument, they are just here to support one side of equation by mere comments such as I agree with this or I want this and not this without supporting their comment with any logic, some of them are misinterpreting the sources and some others preferring simple math over sources as long as it supports their point of view but regardless of the objections that I raised above for whole this situation, I will accept the consensus whatever it is even if not agreeing to it wholeheartedly. Hopefully, reality will win at some point. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, PTI backed Independents had support of PTI and they got votes as PTI backed/supported candidates. They are not like other Independents who were not backed by any party.

There should be a paragraph added in the Aftermath section where there should be mentioned that PTI backed Independents signed affidavit to join Sunni Ittehad Council. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Saad Ali Khan Pakistan: what is difference with Punjab's case? Panam2014 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is now Difference. PTI backed Independents have PTI support where as other Independents. Most of the other independents have joined PMLN with in their 72 hour limit. PTI backed Independents (except for the leaders like Omar Ayub, Gohar Khan Ali Amin Gandapur) signed affidavit to join SIC to get reserved seats for women and non Muslims. We should add a paragraph in Aftermath section in which PTI backed Independents joined SIC. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Did SIC have any candidates in the elections? If not, then I suggest that the PTI independents row in the results table is relabelled as "PTI-independents / SIC" and the reserved seats allocated to SIC are added to that row, with a footnote explaining what happened. If the SIC did contest the elections, then we could put the two together in the table and combine the reserved seats columns, as the reserved seats are effectively being awarded to the PTI independents. Cheers, Number 57 18:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Support. Was also thinking of the same but with parentheses. Borgenland (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Their leader Sahibzada Hamid Raza also ran as independent and won his seat. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57: This is not about what to label in the results table.Me and SheriffIsInTown arguing whether to label PTI-backed independents as SIC lawmakers in the infobox or not. SheriffIsInTown advocating for this change, while I argue that we should maintain the current labeling (PTI-backed independents). what's your opinion ton this. --Saqib (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

PTI backed Independents joined SIC after election so it should not be added as SIC in info box. all PTI backed Independents got PTI's support and vote bank. SIC has a very small support base. I suggest we just write about PTI backed Independents joining SIC in aftermath section. SIC didnt ran any candidate for elecction in any constituency like Majlis-e-Wahdat ul Muslimeen which field a candidate in NA-37 Kurram seat and PTI supported that candidate. Even SIC leader Hamid Raza got PTI ticket. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The distinctive electoral system in Pakistan is incomplete without the inclusion of independents and the allocation of reserved seats. Therefore, the information box should be updated to reflect this. This would mean removing the PTI-IND classification and adding SIC with their leader listed as Sahibzada Hamid Raza, since almost all PTI backed independents have now joined that party. —Ainty Painty (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

PTI backed Independents joined SIC 'after' the election so they should be mentioned in Aftermath section Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ainty Painty, I believe ample discussion has taken place on this matter already above. Have you read? Moreover, independent reliable sources still consistently refer to them as PTI-backed independents.--Saqib (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Ainty Painty @Saqib is right. It should be mentioned in Aftermath section that PTI backed independents joined SIC as per party policy with sources like this, this and and this from relaible Media. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We can not calculate party positions ourselves. We always need some RS to support our added content. The ECP website is the most RS for election-related material. We should wait for an update on the ECP website. Otherwise, there may be a contradiction in the information of WP and ECP website. Remember, ECP is more reliable than any news outlet. What will you do if any user change the infobox with ECP website reference?--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Well we will strive to maintain a balance between what the ECP and what reliable independent sources states. We don't have to rely solely on one source, the ECP. --Saqib (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to clear the confusion here, there has been an established consensus throughout Pakistani election pages starting from 2002 to 2018 that the joining of independents and reserved seats are included in the ultimate calculation in the infobox, due to that established consensus, SIC gets automatic inclusion but at this point PTI-IND and Imran Khan are in the infobox without consensus. What this discussion was trying to establish was to move away from historically established consensus at former election pages and do not count independents who have joined and reserved seats in the ultimate calculation in the infobox, and there has been no consensus to do that thus we need to add SIC as per historically established consensus until there is a clear consensus not to do so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The situation here is unique. I believe we've already thoroughly discussed it above. It's not as straightforward as previous elections. RS still refer to PTI-backed independent candidates as PTI-backed, even though they've joined SIC, and it's been over a month now. Anyway, if you want to reopen the discussion to reach a consensus, let's do it. But please note that any previous consensus ,if there was any, doesn't automatically apply to this election page. --Saqib (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The assertion made by Sheriff here is incorrect. “The joining of independents… are included in the infobox.” - this is not true. Reserved seats have been included but not the joining of independents. The “historically established consensus“ is not what he is claiming. For example in 2018, the PTI total would have been 158 if we included the 9 independents that joined. In 2013 the PMLN total would have been 185 if we included the 19 independents that joined there. But we removed the independents since they had no affiliation to the party when contesting. I’m going to change the infobox to remove independents who joined PMLN after the election for fairness and to follow the “historically established consensus”. маsтегрнатаLк 01:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

actually I won’t change it unilaterally - but you should surely understand what I’m saying here. there is no historical precedent for including independents joining a party to infobox seat counts. маsтегрнатаLк 01:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In 2018 Senate Elections PMLN candidates ran as Independents because of Nawaz Sharif's disqualification but they are still shown as PMLN because they got PMLN tickets and they received PMLN MNA's MPA's and senators votes.

In 2024 we can see the non neutral behaviour of ECP. Instead of giving level playing field to all parties they make all decisions against PTI, whether that is taking back PTI election symbol or not giving them reserved seats and giving them to other parties. @Saqib is right. There should be a balance between ECP and Independent and relaible Media sources. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Saad Ali Khan Pakistan Your comments all seem to echo a similar sentiment and express the same viewpoint. There's no need to respond to each comment with identical text. We've already heard your opinion and taken it into account. See WP:REHASH for further guidance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you should apply this rule to your self as well as you are arguing with everyone on the same sentiment again and again for a month. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed your repeated mention of the senate election argument, which has been addressed numerous times. Just because original research was added to one article doesn't justify its inclusion elsewhere. Candidates from PMLN who contested independently in 2018 should be listed as independent unless they formally joined PMLN post-election. I hope this response clarifies the matter, and I kindly request that you drop the senate election argument from here-on. Also know that, we cannot compare apples with oranges, senate elections are totally different in their structure than general elections. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We are also not judges. We are just editors. We have mentioned ECP behavior on many pages with RS. But we can not ignore ECP for party position. If we add PTI-backed-IND as PTI members, we have to remove them from SIC, but officially they joined SIC by submitting legal affidavits. We should follow ECP in infobox and we can add detail in the page with RS.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 

I would suggest you to give your arguments based on this. --Saqib (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My arguments are not for any specific election. I want to say, that we can not ignore the ECP website as a reference on election pages. Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)