Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Merge and rewrite?

I guess there are at least few Imran Khan related WP:POVFORK pages few of them having considerable WP:PUFFERY / Wikipedia:Wikipuffery needs to be addressed in due course.

Some of the article needs revisit and encyclopedic scrutiny for example First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministershipand also section Imran Khan#Prime Minister of Pakistan is considerably long where as supposed to be main article Premiership of Imran Khan looks almost like a stub. Bookku (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

2A02:CE0:3800:977:E9D1:787F:66F5:7BCE (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)The PDM government after filing more then 150 cases against him disqualified him in a bogus case for the upcoming elections and 5 years in terms.He is now in Attock jail because of the speedy and unjust trail against him

Uh... I don't get it.

― Greater Intosh 15:50, 10 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. -Lemonaka‎ 02:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The cypher/cable

New development: it looks like the content of the cable has now become available. https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/. Someone working on this article may want to follow up. - Jmabel | Talk 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added a sentence on this now. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

Imran Khan’s picture (the one posted on his info-box)is an old picture. It would be better to update it with a newer one which resembles his current appearance more closely such as the file (‘Imran Khan 2019 crop.jpg‘) Ultraprime12345 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the current picture is not older than the one that you are proposing. M.Bitton (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand the point you are trying to make. Perhaps a file which is more recent, such as (Imran Khan in June 2023.jpg)or (Imran Khan - 2023.jpg) would be better to replace, in relevance to the previous argument? Ultraprime12345 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Neither of the proposed pictures are as high-quality as the current one, and the current one is not particularly dated (only a few years, which is normal for pictures of world leaders). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article heavilly glamourises Khan amd its very hard to find any criticisms of his premiership and subsequent attenpt to return to power. There's nothing in the lead about his pro-Taliban and pro-islamists stances, nothing about his populist rhetoric, but most glaringly the article seeme to suggest he improved Pakistan's economy and corruption issues, which if anything, were exacerbated despite his claims. The article really needs a lot more balance, as you would expect for such a political figure; and yes thhis can be difficult to balance but this isway over the top, not only WP:NPOV but really WP:PUFF. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

I want to add her 1992 cricket world cup medals Mujib10 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Leoneix _(talk) 06:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023 (minor change/rewriting the "height" in Infobox)

Hi I want to bring a minor change, in the Infobox the source given is close to 1.88 but somehow breaks and then there's 6'2, so I wanted to rewrite the source just so it's more readable, nicer to look at in some way.

Thus I want to change this :

|heightm = 1.88

To this :

| height = 6 ft 2 in

Thanks.

 Done Thank you! NotAGenious (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, have been sentenced to a total of 14 years in prison, with Khan receiving a 10-year sentence on January 30 Tuesday for leaking classified state documents and an additional sentence on January 31 Wednesday related to accusations of receiving illicit state gifts while in office. The court also imposed a fine of approximately 1.5 billion rupees (£4.2m; $5.3m) on the couple. It is currently unclear if the sentences will be served concurrently. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68150959 EditThemAll (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"secret cable" link

"the contents of a [[Lettergate|secret cable]]" (lead section, [1]) is incompatible with MOS:EASTEREGG. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Y Now that "a" has become part of the link ([2]), the issue is either resolved or less severe than it was before. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Imran Khan: A Short investigate the Continuous Whereabouts of Pakistan's Past Top of the state

[3] ArslanGlotar (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

So what? --Mhhossein ^talk 21:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

'Alleged' cipher

By now it seems clear that the cipher is real - it has been published in its entirety by The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/) - and that it does show that the US was expressing, at least, a strong desire for Khan to be ousted because of his foreign policy, again confirmed by the analysis of The Intercept. As the separate article on Lettergate makes clear, even Pakistani officials have admitted the existence of the cipher and much of its content. (Not to mention that it never made sense to sentence someone for leaking a secret if the secret wasn't true.) Thus, the highly cautious and sceptical qualifications of everything pertaining to the cable as 'alleged' are no longer warranted. Even assuming that this is a 'state secret' of Pakistan because of 'national security considerations' (rather absurdly IMO, but never mind), Wikipedia is under no obligation to maintain it. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sentence in "Public image" section

'His critics have often called him "Fitna Khan" and "Zinayi Khan"' - what do these words mean? I looked both up, and could find no explanation. It would be useful- on the English Wikipedia- to have some kind of meaning provided for whatever these two names are supposed to represent or indicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.237.50 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

They are abusive and derogatory words dear RedHood9112 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

Add a sentence.. RedHood9112 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2024 (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. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Imran Khan's dressing

When talking about Imran Khan's Dressing, Everyone imagines the shalwar kameez-waistcoat combination with a Peshwari chapal. Talking about his Peshwari chapal need to understand that they were all custom made chapals from high-end designers, French fashion designer Christian Louboutin's Paul Smith was in love with these Peshwari chapals that made him re-introduced them to the world and named them "Imran sandals". After becoming prime minister, This was his usual dressing almost everyday. Addition to this he used to wear black sunglasses as part of his dressing. MuhammadNeroz (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected: edit request

To correct the malapropism in the last paragraph under Political ideology / Foreign relations: correct "lightening rod" to "lightning rod" qwaal (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Zanahary (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

Just wanted to add a sentence. RedHood9112 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (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. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2024

Change ODI cap number from “115” to “12” in his cricket career stats. 58.65.144.147 (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

“175”* to “12” 58.65.144.147 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Islamic-Nationalist

On Modi's page, Wikipedia describes him as a Hindu Nationalist. Why doesn't Wikipedia allow Imran Khan to be described as Islamic Nationalist? (He preaches about Islam in his speeches, starts speeches with "bismillah rahman e rahim", an Islamic prayer). Why this double-standard from the "mods" or whoever it is who controls Wikipedia? 75.76.166.65 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

In his medal record you should also add Nehru Cup which Pakistan won under Imran khans captaincy. All 6 test playing teams participated in Nehru cup cricket in 1989. The final was played between Pakistan and West Indies which Pakistan won under Imran khan’s captaincy. 142.126.224.31 (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024 (2)

I request you to change the text 'In his virtual address at the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 24 September 2021, Khan remarked that many Pakistani Pashtuns "had strong sympathies with the Afghan Taliban, not because of their religious ideology, but because of Pashtun nationalism."' to 'In his virtual address at the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 24 September 2021, Khan remarked "and then along along the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan [FATA] – the Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal belt they had strong sympathies with the Afghan Taliban, not because of their religious ideology, but because of Pashtun nationalism.' According to the source itself [[4]] he was talking about the people of fata not about all pashtuns. Knightknight12345 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024 (3)

{{edit extended-prot--103.251.255.97 (talk)ected|Imran Khan|answered=no}}

103.251.255.97 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

|office2 = 36th Interior Minister of Pakistan |term_start2 = 31 August 2018 |term_end2 = 18 April 2019 |deputy2 = Shehryar Afridi as state Minister

Prime Ministership Article

@SheriffIsInTown I was thinking of splitting the Prime Minister section into the Prime Ministership of Imran Khan article which is a redirect. Shehbaz Sharif already has a premiership article with the same done, I also feel that the PM section is lengthy and could use its own article. Do you oppose this and are you okay with me making this major change? Titan2456 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually support that. My goal when creating the article was to eventually update it, but due to personal commitments, I couldn't. As a result, people kept adding prime ministership content to the BLP, making that section longer than the article itself, and eventually, it was turned into a redirect. I had planned to split it into a separate article one day. If you can do that, please go ahead. I will support it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It would make sense to do that. Having one extremely long section unbalances the article. A summary here with link to main would be an improvement. PearlyGigs (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@PearlyGigs@SheriffIsInTown I'm not too good at summarizing, but I hope this is good for the summary in this article:

Following a populist campaign against corruption in the 2018 elections, Imran Khan became the 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan on 17 August 2018 after his Oath of office ceremony. Upon taking office, he laid out a 100-day plan to rapidly reform the country in a short time span. He made significant changes in the country's bureaucracy and military leadership, including appointing Sohail Mahmood as Foreign Secretary and Lieutenant General Asim Munir as Director-General of Inter-Services Intelligence. Khan's cabinet included many ministers from the Musharraf era and former members of the Pakistan People's Party. His government undertook major cabinet reshuffles and faced economic challenges, resulting in seeking an IMF bailout, as well as implementing austerity measures. By 2020, Pakistan's balance of payments improved, fiscal deficit narrowed, and tax collection reached record highs.

Khan's foreign policy followed primarily a "Pakistan first" ideology, in which he sought to establish Pakistan as a respected player on the international stage. He emphasized Islamic unity through his efforts against Islamophobia and leadership in the OIC. Him and his close foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi established good relations with Saudi Arabia, though he stated that he sought to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia amidst their proxy-conflict. Khan maintained a strong stance on the Kashmir issue, refusing talks with India until autonomy was restored in Indian-held Kashmir. Khan also criticized the American drone campaign in Pakistan, as well as declared that the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan should be recognized and not isolated.

Domestically, Khan's government launched an anti-corruption campaign, improved security, and banned certain extremist groups. In social policy, his administration restored minority religious sites, reformed education and healthcare, and expanded large welfare programs most prominently the Sehaat Sahulat Program. His government passed the Zainab Alert Bill as an attempt to increase Women's rights in Pakistan. His environmental initiatives, primarily the Plant for Pakistan increased renewable energy and attempted to reforest Pakistan at a large scale.

Khan faced criticism for certain comments and policies, though he was praised for handling the COVID-19 pandemic, rolling out a large welfare program, and achieving a V-shaped economic recovery. He was removed from office in March 2022, amidst a motion of no-confidence against his government where many of his coalition partners left his government resulting in his ousting, being the first prime minister of Pakistan successfully overthrown by a no-confidence motion. Despite his ousting at the three and a half year mark, his prime ministership saw large-scale reforms in many sectors, espousing a welfarist domestic policy, a foreign policy active in many global issues and an anti-corruption political policy. Titan2456 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Titan2456, and thanks for the ping. As a summary, this fits the bill for me. It's concise and yet it covers a wide scope. Well done. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The summary is copacetic. 🤙🏽 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Done! Titan2456 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorting out the various charges

We need to be more careful in presenting the various charges against Khan. Afaict these consist of:

1. What we call the "2022 Toshakhana reference case"

2. What we call the "First arrest and release" which apparently was declared illegal.

3. What we call the "Conviction and second arrest" relating to "misusing his premiership from 2018 to 2022 to buy and sell gifts". He was sentenced to three years in prison but "an appeals court suspended Khan's corruption conviction and three-year prison term, and granted bail".

4. The "cypher case" in which Khan was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Islamabad High Court later overturned Khan's conviction in this case

5. The marriage law case: "On 3 February, Khan and his wife were convicted and sentenced to an additional seven years in prison and fined 500,000 rupees ($1,800) each following a criminal complaint by Bushra Bibi's former husband, Khawar Maneka, saying that Bushra did not complete her Iddat before marrying Khan in 2018".

Currently, charges 3 - 5 are all under the one heading and are not sufficiently distinguished. It would be difficult to separate the changes into separate sections because there is a time overlap and the defence team lodged an appear against cases 3-5 at the same time. However, I suggest replacing the titles "2023 arrests" and "Conviction and second arrest" with something more accurate.

Burrobert (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024

Please change in the list of leaders who are convicted and sentenced where Imran khan has been alleged for corruption charges in fact all the allegation of corruption have been dismissed by the Supreme Court now he is only convicted for getting married legally yes he is convicted for getting married and even this case is still in the court and will be dismissed if he gets a fair trial So please remove the allegations and conviction of corruption charges on Imran khan 2607:FEA8:4C20:99E0:ECBA:971:434F:AA3F (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2024 (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. Charliehdb (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

Change Imran Khan’s photo in the info box to a newer one, took in 2023 instead of the 2020 one in place right now. The new image file would be: Imran Khan in June 2023.jpg Ultraprime12345 (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Current image
  Current image
• 
  Proposed replacement

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The image is acceptably licensed, but I'm not sure that it's an improvement - it's a lossy screencap from a Youtube video whereas the current image is a freely-donated high-resolution photograph. And despite its age it was only uploaded a couple months ago. Feel free to discuss and make a new request later if other editors agree that it should be updated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Add "Interior Minister" with dates "20 August 2018 – 18 April 2019" under the appropriate section. 182.177.53.211 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Imran elected by the election Oxford university 2A02:CB80:4279:856A:F1C3:DE8D:2AC3:426D (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Election

Imran elected by the election Oxford university 2A02:CB80:4279:856A:F1C3:DE8D:2AC3:426D (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024 imran khan won the vice chancellor election. great

Kashif19283 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done He did not. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Jail Campaigning vs Allegations of political motives

@SheriffIsInTown How is Jail Campaigning NPOV? He is politically campaigning from jail, that is a fact, simple. Titan2456 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456 He did not campaign from jail; this is a misconception. Instead, his supporters and party members, including Gohar Ali Khan, campaigned for him during the past election, while the campaign for the chancellorship is currently ongoing from outside Pakistan. Additionally, the section heading should accurately reflect the content, which largely consists of allegations regarding the political motivations behind his imprisonment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Gohar and his party contested in elections, I am talking about campaigned, Imran Khan is campaigning as chancellor, for democracy, rule of law and certain anti-army viewpoints from jail, that is a fact. The content entirely talks about how Khan is still active in campaigning from jail. Campaigning is used in the term of being politically active, which the section solely talks about. Titan2456 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Avoid making general statements; he did not actively campaign for anything. Please specify from the sources how he engaged in campaigning or promoted his candidacy. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Campaign Definition: an organized course of action to achieve a goal. Imran Khan has been campaigning for rule of law and democracy, that is what campaign means, all the statements he gives, the rallies he organizes, the interviews, he is campaigning. Titan2456 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

These are your claims; he did not campaign for anything. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:IDHT I just gave you the definition of campaign. Read here: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-imran-khan-is-campaigning-jail-pakistan-ai-covert-canvassing-2024-02-05/ Its Reuters, not an opinion piece like the one you cited. Titan2456 (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, why did you cite an opinion piece and use NPOV language when you corrected my NPOV language previously? Titan2456 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Once more, this is a general assertion. Please specify particular issues, and I will respond accordingly. The opinion piece reflects Imran Khan’s views and statements he has actually made. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You cannot use an opinion piece as a citation, that is the bottom line for Wikipedia. If you want to, write that it is an opinion piece and write that all the info is sourced from that. Titan2456 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I have already corrected it, why are you citing an opinion piece as information in the first place though? Titan2456 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not make corrections; instead, you reverted the streamlined version of the content entirely, which I do not agree with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean streamlines you literally removed all indication that its an opinion piece? Also why did you select the most negative anti-Imran Khan one, there are so many more like these, can they be used according to you?

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/imran-khan-oxford-university-next-chancellor

https://zeteo.com/p/why-imran-khan-should-be-the-next Titan2456 (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you double-checked your revert diff? You didn’t just restore the attribution—you reverted the streamlined version. Your question about choosing the most negative perspective is illogical. Why do you consistently choose the most positive angles for PTI and Imran Khan and never balance it with contrary views to maintain neutrality? I am simply correcting the one-sided narrative, which came across as a chancellorship campaign, portraying him as suffering and still fighting and campaigning from jail. Why didn’t you include the opposing perspective from the start so I wouldn’t have had to step in? Why do you always behave as if you’re working for them? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What are these assumptions? Campaigning isn't even a positive or negative word, and you didn't correct a one-sided narrative, you cited an OPINION PIECE. When did I portray him as suffering? this is another baseless assumption. Titan2456 (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Avoid making assumptions about others if you don’t want assumptions to be made in return. Opinion pieces are permissible as long as they are supported by other sources and it can be demonstrated that he actually made those statements about Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and rape victims. The opinion piece is merely referencing his own statements. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you used words like "widely raised concerns" or "widely condemned" when it was only Catherine Bennet who wrote that, I have not removed the opinion piece entirely but I have made it neutral like the rest of the article removing NPOV or claims that it was 'widely viewed' to 'she viewed'. If you do not have a response to the "Jail Campaigning" title then I will change it back. Titan2456 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you bother to check your edit diff to see what you changed? For section heading, I might be willing to step back a bit in favor of "2024 election campaign" instead of your preferred one until I review all the sources in that section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The section talks about his campaigning for democracy/rule of law, not the 2024 elections. The non-streamlined version is better, but that we can discuss, Titan2456 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We can modify it to “Campaign from jail” for the time being. Why are you removing the final paragraph, which sums up the reasons he is not a suitable candidate? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is completely opinionated and sourced from the opinion article. There are many articles explaining how he is a good candidate and many that explain he is a bad, I would suggest keeping one short paragraph per opinion Titan2456 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456 You can’t continue adding content while I’m making an effort to hold back. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, what do you want changed about how the article is right now. Titan2456 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown I cannot find a mention of personal ambition by Khan in the 3 citations you gave in your recent edit, can you copy-paste the text from the citations talking about his personal ambitions and self-interest for verification. Titan2456 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added the changes, you can restore your info about why he is a bad pick according to Catherine Bennet as long as you maintain it is her opinion. Titan2456 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that source cannot be used, you can bring it to WP:RSN. I’m quite sure we can use it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the statement about "ambition and self-interest" before I saw this discussion. Neither of the 3 sources mention these terms in relation to Khan's term in gaol. One source was published before he went to gaol, another was published just after he went to gaol and does not mention his actions while in gaol. The third source (the BBC) does mention what could be interpreted as "ambition and self-interest" but is talking about the views of his opponents, not critics, and is discussing his time while in office, not while in gaol. Burrobert (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown if this is the case why are you adding it? Titan2456 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown why did you add the statement of self-interest when the citations didn’t verify it? Titan2456 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Such an attitude is completely unacceptable for someone considering becoming an admin here. How can anyone expect the community to support someone’s bid to become an admin while using fake references to promote propaganda on a crucial BLP? @SheriffIsInTown: I suggest that you revert your edits if you haven't done so already because our admins are held in very high regard, and we do not expect such editing behaviour from them. I’d be willing to support your admin nom, but only if you stop your biased POV editing that’s been occurring on many pages, including 2024 Pakistani general election. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a bit of an oversight on my part. My modification was based on a source discussing his political struggle, which confirms, as stated by Burroburt, that his time in government can be interpreted as motivated by personal ambition and self-interest. While it did not fit the specific section, it was relevant to the article as a whole. Section headings can sometimes be misleading, but that does not mean the content about the person was untrue or unsupported by the source. That being said, I accepted the correction from Burroburt, and that should have been the end of it instead of both of you continuing to beat the dead horse. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, Yes, you realised it was an oversight after @Burrobert: had to intervene. By the way, this isn’t the only instance, and I’m not trying to beat the dead horse, but I just want to remind you that admins are not expected to engage in this kind of POV editing behavior. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

WSJ source

I don't have access to Murdoch's Wall St Journal. It is being used here to say that Khan told the Supreme Court that Pakistan is under what he describes as an "undeclared martial law". The limited access I have to the WSJ shows the following text:

Former Pakistan Leader Imran Khan Says Country Is Under ‘Undeclared Martial Law’
Khan, effectively under house arrest, says democratic progress is in jeopardy as country teeters on brink of default
Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan—effectively held under house arrest by the army-backed government - said his country was under an "undeclared martial law".
In an interview from his police-ringed home in the eastern Pakistani city ...

Can someone who has access copy and paste the relevant section of the article here please? My limited access seems to indicate he may have made the statement in an interview from home, but, on the other hand, perhaps not. It seems an odd thing to say to the Supreme Court. Anyway, if the WSJ does confirm the statement was made to the Supreme Court, we should replace the wording "While he was brought before the highest court of the country by the jail authorities ..." with something like "In a statement to the Supreme Court, ... ". Burrobert (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Burrobert You can check either of the two sources to gather information. If access to one is restricted, the other can serve as an alternative. Both sources should provide the necessary details. Obviously he made the statement to someone, the other source states SCP, he could not have just yelled out the window? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice the second source, which does support the current wording. From the small part that I could see of the WSJ source, it seemed that the statement was made in a telephone interview, not by yelling out the window. Anyway, we should just say he made the statement to the Supreme Court. Burrobert (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevance?

What is the relevance of the following sentence to Imran's bio? If there is some connection, it needs to be better explained using a source which makes the connection.

Her personal secretary, Noor Zaman, alleged that she had met with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and Amir Muqam several times, along with her father. Zaman does not specify the timing of these meetings. Burrobert (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

@SheriffIsInTown might I remind you that you approved the premiership section before it was put on the article and called it "copacetic" here Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 5#Prime Ministership Article. What is the use of this POV tag? Titan2456 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay for an initial write-up but there is always room for improvement. It should be improved with neutral point of view. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

How exactly, it is nominated for GA right now and the POV tag would immediately bypass it. Titan2456 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Why did you nominate it for GA? I don’t think it’s ready. There’s too much POV, not just in this section but in other areas as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

How exactly? Nawaz Sharif’s, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s, they all include the government’s achievements and tenure, not criticisms, that too this is a summary not the full article. The section mentions how the government faced financial problems which led to an IMF loan and even says it faced criticisms for policies and comments. If you are saying this section includes POV then basically all other articles do, you said it was good and approved it, but now are reversing your statement? I do not understand what POV you mean, all other articles follow this level of wording all prime ministers and political parties.

For example:

Pakistan Muslim League (N): It says “PML-N struck its remarkable, biggest, and most notable achievement in the 1997 parliamentary election”, this is POV and the section does not mention any allegations of rigging despite Dawn deeming it the most rigged election in Pakistan’s history. This section not flagged for POV but PTI’s Imran Khan government section which has no POV does?

I know you will say “free feel to add POV tags to those pages” but this is a clear editing pattern of demoting PTI-related pages. I have tried to WP:AGF with you but the editing pattern is to clear in trying to demote PTI. Titan2456 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you argue over everything? Do you think you own all articles related to PTI? What do you mean by saying you’ve “tried to AGF” with me? How is that relevant to me? Focus on addressing the issues, not the editor—if you can’t, then allow someone else to handle it when they can. Remember, you’re not the owner of these articles, so let the tag remain if you can’t resolve the issues. Also, why do you keep referencing other articles? Those aren’t infallible either and can be improved as well. Anytime anyone makes changes to a PTI-related article, you start arguing over it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing this is a discussion. I have remained WP:CIVIL always in discussions in response to you. Anyways forget about this and lets focus on removing the template. What is POV in this page, it already says criticisms, copy and paste all the sentences you believe are POV. Titan2456 (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned on the other talk page, the entire section reflects a POV and needs a more neutral perspective. It currently presents a one-sided view, making it resemble a fanpage. To balance it, the opposing perspective should be included. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I require you to be more specific, give examples of POV sentences, and what in specific should be added Titan2456 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been reports which indicated that during his tenure, he largely depended on military support to gather votes for legislative matters. He also faces multiple corruption allegations, for which he is currently being tried in several cases. Journalists were reportedly targeted, and their shows were blacked out if they criticised his government. Opposition leaders were allegedly framed in fabricated cases, including one against Rana Sanaullah, among others. Additionally, it’s necessary to include the country’s corruption index ranking at the start and end of his tenure, as well as an economic comparison from when he took office to when he left. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Done Titan2456 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly balanced. You’ve included promotional paragraphs, but only a few lines that might reflect negatively on him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

They are not promotional, check the citations they fully support the claims. I have already put effort into trying to follow your suggestion, paste here how much criticism of him you want in the section. Titan2456 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegation of harassment moved to time in opposition

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Observers v Shamsi

@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)

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)

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)

Fair enough. Burrobert (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Premiership Summary

@Canned Knight, these edits [5][6] 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)

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)

I agree Titan2456 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456 Could you add the content you removed from this article to the Premiership article? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Premiership of Imran Khan

@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)

Mass revert

@WikiEnthusiast1001 Your edit summary stated Restoring chronological order undone by Sheriff and removing duplicate AP link., you did not just restore the chronological order which was not important according to WP:CITEORDER but have undone all of my changes which included fixing the fully capitalized source title to meet WP:MOS, the improved language for the content under harassment allegations to make them more neutral, balanced and structured, uncited statement under removal of office, the text "Others attributed the motion to" not supported by the source, and undue statement about Gulalai maligning Pakistan Army, all this just to restore chronological order of sources which does not matter under WP:CITEORDER or was this your intention to undo all those changes, if so, can you explain why? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEnthusiast1001 I waited for your reply for over 36 hours, I went ahead and restored everything else keeping your preferred cite order as-is, following is the explanation regarding all the changes, instead of a mass revert, please reply with your objections to all of these changes and I am open to further discussion on this matter.

Explanation of changes

• I moved all the metadata details for APA source to the first named instance.
• Removed the text "Other's attributed the motion to" since the BBC source by Muhammad Hanif talks about Khan's overall relations with military and does not even mention the motion.
• Removed the words "Khan's rival political party" in reference to Amir Muqam since source explicitly does not state so.
• Removed the text "Gulalai later admitted that she had been in contact with the PML-N and they had offered her a senate ticket to malign the Pakistan Army." since Gulalai being offered senate ticket to malign Pakistan Army is undue in article about Khan.
• Adjusted language in harassment allegations section in order to remove informal tone, improve neutrality, expand context, align structure, balanced attribution and for overall balance.

Happy to explain further if needed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEnthusiast1001 @Titan2456 Since Titan raised a concern about continuing to edit at ANI, I have decided to voluntarily refrain from editing the page. I also propose that all three of us avoid editing the page until the ANI discussion is resolved or an uninvolved editor confirms that it is appropriate to do so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, thanks again for your edit. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi[a] (Urdu: عمران خان) (born 5 October 1952) Hafsa pk (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done... it is not clear what change you want made, please format your request as "change X to Y". - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Premiership summary

@SheriffIsInTown @PearlyGigs@WikiEnthusiast1001, the premiership section is now very long after Sheriff began expanding only criticism, it is now almost as long as the premiership article itself and violates the summary style, either we can shift back to the old summary, my one, which was short, or delete the premiership page entirely and merge into this. Titan2456 (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have some ideas on how to shorten it for now, but it would be better to take one of the two above mentioned actions. Titan2456 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You could have communicated your point without directing accusations at me. Are you trying to provoke conflict in every conversation? Just to remind you, you presented a one-sided narrative that overlooked WP:NPOV, which I noticed and made an effort to balance. Naturally, your positive narrative could only be countered with criticism. Additionally, the section had contributions from WE1001 and @Canned Knight. By the way, who are PearlyGigs? Are you attempting to WP:CANVASS? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There was no accusation, the expansion stemmed after you added a lot of negative content additions. I used an online summarizing tool to summarize the Premiership of Imran Khan page but the section has now become completely a violation of WP:SUMMARY and WP:BLPBALANCE. The premiership section had years of contributions of people adding negative and positive information, finally achieving a balance. However, since it was effectively blanked by me due to the article split, it is and will go through the same edit-warring pattern again for a long time to come, thats why its better to restore the consensused old premiership section which is balanced, merging it. PearlyGigs was one of the editors who supported the summary and article split originally in the first discussion. The section will immediately fail GA as it already fails WP:BLP. Titan2456 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

While this is being addressed, its important to note that you have added clear violations of WP:BLP that need to be fixed with consensus.

Firstly, WP:BLPBALANCE is violated with: In April 2020, Imad Zafar penned an opinion editorial in The Asia Times, wrote Khan's government was "playing the blame game by bashing opposition politicians to divert the masses’ attention from the pandemic’s effect".

Secondly, the second sentence is a violation of WP:INTEXT, not giving a mention of the opinion piece and possibly also giving undue weight to the minority opinion piece viewpoint: In April 2020, the government's responses led to pandemic-related response confusion, being "lackadaisical" and having "deprived the country of a clear sense of direction." Titan2456 (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree; Sheriff mainly elaborated on the criticism, which made it necessary to balance the section with positives for neutrality. This essentially defeats the purpose of having a separate Premiership article. I’m fine with reverting to your earlier summary or merging the Premiership page into this one entirely. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for supporting the merger of a 4,623-word article into one that already exceeds 13,000 words? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to do your research before you speak. This time, I am not saying "before you open your mouth" because then you accuse me of using harsh language, but this is really getting on my nerves. You need to stop accusing me of things I did not do. You accused me of the same at ANI. I could have nailed you down right there, as you were completely wrong, but I didn't because I knew people were upset due to our back-and-forth bickering. To be succinct, this content was not added by me. I challenge you to post the diffs here showing that I added that content. When you find out that you were wrong, be a gentleman and apologize for falsely accusing me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you cannot have a summary section that presents a one-sided narrative without neutral balance. The issue began when you included a section that only documented achievements, which would have certainly failed GAN. It is much closer to GAN now after being properly balanced neutrally than it was when you added promotional content that wasn’t supported by reliable sources and much of which failed verification. I had to align it with sources and then work to balance it neutrally, so stop accusing me and focus on discussing the content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You accused me first of the exact same thing, expect some kind of response when opening a discussion like that. I didn’t open this thread to start bickering, it is to achieve a consensus on how to summarize his premiership; also tagging @Burrobert for consensus. It is much closer to GAN now after being properly balanced neutrally. Really? PearlyGigs and you yourself accepted it initially, proving that it wasn’t inherently promotional. The new summary immediately fails five WP policies: WP:SUMMARY, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INTEXT as well as still failing WP:NPOV. Examples provided above which haven’t been adressed. For NPOV, the corruption section added ignores all the steps Khan took against corruption and immediately jumps to how the attempts failed, including another BLPBALANCE violation, with the opinion of a certain “Farzana Shaikh” provided for no reason. These should all be addressed to reach a final consensus on how to summarize his premiership as it will result in future conflicts over the premiership section. These are also basic BLP violations, some of the most basic WP laws, this is sadly far from GA. Titan2456 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked you for the diffs regarding the content of which you accuse me of adding but you did not provide any because you do not have any, here I provide you those diffs:

• Original content was added by Canned Knight
• Attribution to The Express Tribune was added by WikiEnthusiast1001

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part to assume you made those changes, however, my concerns over the COVID and Corruption section still remain, which were added by you and are still overly negative filled with too many opinions rather than facts and statistics. Whoever added BLP violations it should be removed, Again, the reason for this thread is to establish a unanimous consensus like seen on the Donald Trump page, which prevents edit warring, on this vital BLP. Titan2456 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Canned Knight I have made the decision not to edit the page for now due to contention. However, the press freedom section could use Khan's response to press freedom, I think this should be added to the article:

Not one case against the media, media house or any one was ever instituted by my government. What happened was that there were army laws. So the journalist who got into trouble said something to the army. So under some security law, action was taken against them. And by the way, there were two journalists abducted during my time. When I found out, immediately the next day, we had them released. Compare that to what’s going on now. A journalist was killed.

— Imran Khan, in a VICE News interview from March 2023.

Titan2456 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I will edit the page to add IK's responses in a few hours when I get the time Canned Knight (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Canned Knight Would you mind moving the whole premiership section into relevant subsections at Premiership of Imran Khan and then create neutrally balanced summary for this article? I know it is a huge task but with all the trust deficit going on, you are our best bet for this task. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Well I will try Canned Knight (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, we should allow it to stabilise before moving content to the other page, as the recent couple of edits still need to be assessed for source compliance and neutrality. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would support Canned Knight moving some of this content to Premiership of Imran Khan page mainly the press freedom and job growth sections and then keeping a short summary here. However, this will be a long process as a lot of this content is already mentioned in the premiership article. Also, there is some BLPVIOs and unnecessary weight that I will address before it is moved. Titan2456 (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Till then I will focus on promoting the other sections as per the GA criteria. Titan2456 (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The press freedom section definitely needs to be condensed, it is highly lengthy. Titan2456 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A better solution would be to either leave it as it is or combine the information from this article into the premiership article and then revise the summary, making sure it is neutral, balanced, and adheres to the sources. I can take care of all that if you folks trust me, though trust is something we seem to be lacking here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I will mention all the major changes I plan to make to this page for GAN here so there is no contention, when I have the time. For now, I am notifying here that I am adding these three images to the page in a minor edit. I will post all my edits here so that there is hopefully no more edit warring or concerns of POV.

Three images I am adding

Titan2456 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown please mention your edits here as I am doing, I already mentioned I was adding the PM’s image but you did not respond. Titan2456 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the edit summary, the SCO image featuring only him does not contribute any value to the article. The image with the President is also more appropriate from an encyclopedic perspective than one of him sitting alone with his mouth open, seemingly about to speak. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

References