Jump to content

Talk:Imran Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Former good article nomineeImran Khan was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    June 7, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
    In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 29, 2018, and February 1, 2024.

    Allegation of harassment moved to time in opposition

    [edit]

    @WikiEnthusiast1001 as per WP:CSECTION and to preserve the articles’ structure the “Allegation of Sexual Harassment” section should be moved to the “In opposition” section as it occurred in 2017, when Khan was in opposition. I will make the change of moving the info into the In opposition section myself but I am posting here to avoid an edit war or dispute. Titan2456 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with this move, as the allegation has nothing to do with his being in opposition or serving as opposition leader. It simply happened to occur while he was in opposition. Therefore, I will be restoring that section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is about his time in opposition, follow WP:CSECTION, the article’s structure would be maligned with one allegation out of place from the rest. This is just one allegation of harassment, it should be put under a section and the only one that would make sense would be In opposition, about his time in opposition. He was never opposition leader and was just an MNA during 2013-2017, if the controversy occurred in that time it should be placed there. Titan2456 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe WP:CSECTION is applicable to this content, as WP:CSECTION clearly illustrates that we should not create separate sections about controversies or criticism and include positive and negative content about the subject's role in the same section. This content differs, as it does not pertain to his role as an opposition politician, so a separate section is appropriate. If reliable sources provide any praise regarding his handling of the sexual harassment matter, we will include that praise within the same section to align with WP:CSECTION. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Titan, I support your move 100%. There is no reason why it should have it's own section as it's just one allegation. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A single allegation is significant on its own, even as much as multiple allegations would be. It is unrelated to his role in opposition and has no connection to him being an opposition politician at the time when it happened. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does, he was an opposition MNA while the allegation came out, that is not how section headings work. You are missing the point entirely. Titan2456 (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite; you’re both missing the point here. It seems you both have been trying to downplay or conceal any critical information about PTI figures, and this appears to be another attempt to bury that information within a broader section. If you’re using WP:CSECTION as a justification for this, why not apply it to the “Wealth” and “Public image” sections too, so that their content is split into other main sections? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Address the point brought up prior
    Accuse both editors of bias
    Sheriff, this is another example of WP:IDHT by you, there is a majority consensus of two editors already. Furthermore, WP:AGF rather than accusing everyone of something. WP:CSECTION isn’t my main point, you know why wealth and public image aren’t included because there is an abundance of content in those sections and it is on a certain subject with importance, it definitely seems like you are singling out negative info on Imran Khan’s page out of personal bias. If you want, change the title to “Time in opposition” but that is how a Wikipedia article’s structure works. You can’t have the whole article follow a timeline and then single out one event at the end. Titan2456 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Sheriff has made disruptive edits on another page I was working on, and an admin eventually stepped in to address it. It might be best if he takes a break and returns later. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already addressed the concerns and clarified why it is not suitable for inclusion in the section about his time in opposition. I have nothing more to add. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Observers v Shamsi

    [edit]

    @Burrobert It would be altogether out of place if the word "Observers" were replaced with "Amber Shamsi." Amber Shamsi is one in a series of analysts or critics running through the entire article concerning Khan's effort at anti-corruption. The original text uses the term "Observers" to capture multiple sources of input such as but not limited to other experts like Michael Kugelman and political figures like Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. Using the name 'Amber Shamsi' exclusively narrows that vision and gives the impression that she was the only one to remark on these selective anti-corruption campaigns where, in fact, there is much broader criticism in this article by various persons. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like wp:weasel wording. Specify who is making the comment and what they say. The political figures whose opinion is mentioned in the article are Shehbaz Sharif, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Zulfiqar Ali Bader. The analysts are Michael Kugelman, Amber Shamsi, and Benazir Shah. I could not find where any of the "analysts" said Khan's efforts were "selective". Who are the "critics" who "question the effectiveness and impartiality of Khan's anti-corruption policies". Burrobert (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve restored your original wording, though Shamsi and Abbasi’s statements do suggest that the anti-corruption campaign focused on opposition politicians, which can reasonably be interpreted as selective efforts. Paraphrasing naturally varies from person to person. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Burrobert (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Premiership Summary

    [edit]

    @Canned Knight, these edits [1][2] you made are good, but I think they should be included on the Premiership of Imran Khan page, as opinions or intricate details of Khan's premiership should be in that article, this article is only supposed to contain a summary of that. Titan2456 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess they could be moved to the Premiership article and summarized/shortened on this page. Canned Knight (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Titan2456 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titan2456 Could you add the content you removed from this article to the Premiership article? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Premiership of Imran Khan

    [edit]

    @WikiEnthusiast1001 Are we bringing the content back from Premiership of Imran Khan, the section you keep expanding was supposed to be a summary. The initial need to expand arose when Titan 2456 added only one-sided promotional content without balancing and neutralizing but that does not mean that we should keep expanding it further. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]