Talk:November 2024 PTI protest

Removing of moderation and policing

The article was developing appropriately and democratically, but two things have blocked that process: policing, and opinionated actions of inept and arrogant users with elevated permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAdil (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed the confusing contentious thing

It's not needed, a bunch of genocidal classification, C-class, as-in we don't care if you die in bulk. Instead we can have a worded highlight at the top of article, that it needs journalistic contributions, and locked until there's meaningful consolidation of engagement in the Talk page. This is a public wiki, people from "contentious" regions have just as much say in their own way of contribution. No "one" has monopoly on how wikis should be run. Categorizations are guidelines, not commandments.

What's with the name

I created a Islamabad Massacre 2024, and it was redirected here yet again. Where is this do-or-die thing coming from, there was no doing and dying as part of the party's manifesto for this march. They had clear demands for dialog, not "doing" something and "dying" if not done. Some aspects of doing and dying were later introduced by Bushra Bibi, in an emotional way as the wife of the incarcerated Imran Khan. The title of this article needs to be updated. Islamabad Massacre 2024 is the publicly recognized event, and it's the ideal name. If not, it should be something closely related to Islamabad and direness of the matter. Neither protests, nor riots, nor unrest fit the description. Massacre is the word, and I feel wiki administrators are vehemently censoring truth in guise of "quality". People have died, we can fix grammar and structure as we go, but fix the damn title first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAdil (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Islamabad Massacre 2024

PTI and Imran khan called it a black day and islamabad massacre in their posts and tweets 82.16.98.220 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Islamabad Massacre as some are calling it is part of this protest, a redirect is created on Islamabad Massacre. A better title is needed for article though, maybe we can go for November 2024 Pakistani protests or 2024 Pakistani protests. We have similar articles for last year demonstrations like 2023 Pakistani protests. Muneebll (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Thank you for your input Sa1e24 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION as article titles must adhere to both policies. According to WP:COMMONNAME, this particular protest is commonly known as “do-or-die.” Additionally, as per WP:PRECISION, the title cannot use a broad term like “Pakistani,” as the protest did not involve all Pakistanis but was specific to one party, which should be reflected in the title. If previous articles were named inappropriately, that does not justify repeating the mistake here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't party specific. Protests in Pakistan are always steered by political parties, and as it moves, people join in and then leave when it's not feasible. If the protest was to sit-in at the place they were murdered violently, non-party Pakistanis would have gathered. RealAdil (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why countless people are pushing to create a city specific name, and massacre because thousands of people are missing, poof gone, several many have arrived at hospitals with upper body bullet strikes. Do we need government statement that they operated and killed 100000 people to call it a massacre? RealAdil (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I support changing it either to November 2024 Pakistani protests or Final Call protests as that is the protests official name. WP:CONSISTENT applies here for the title to be same with various predecessor articles. Titan2456 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT does not take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. Additionally, we also have the 2014 Tsunami March. Moreover, the term “do-or-die” appears in more sources compared to “final call”. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Where does it appear? RealAdil (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

what sources? This Wikipedia page seems more like an attempt to justify and downplay the massacre. 39.51.97.151 (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean seriously, a simple google search would tell you what is the common name for this protest:

• Why Hundreds Of Pakistanis Are Ready To 'Do Or Die' For Jailed Ex-PM Imran Khan?
• Islamabad violence: Pakistan launches ‘midnight raid’ to clear Imran Khan supporters after 6 die in 'do-or-die' protest
• PTI's 'Do-or-Die' Rally Storms Islamabad for Imran Khan's Release

Three are enough or do you want more? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

"DO or Die" is an idiom, commonly used for political/non political actions. The articles you sourced do not state, 'do or die protest' is the name of the protest. Trank1133 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the rename. This article title does not fall within the ambit of WP:COMMONNAME. Nearly all major local sources used in the article call it as "Final Call", which was the name for the protest chosen by the PTI. However, given that several independent and international media outlets have extensively covered on the the protestor deaths, the title Islamabad Massacre would be more in-sync with what actually happened on ground. The current name seems to be an attempt at dilution and obfuscation.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

sheriff seems to be a lacky of the current government and a supporter of the killings. ergo his pedantic attempts at downplaying the killings and even justifyign them. Trank1133 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not downplaying anything when independent sources only confirm 6 dead including 4 security personnel, how can you call it a "massacre". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The only sources that are denying civilian deaths are those affiliated with the government and security forces accused of carrying out the killings. Ergo your reliance on such soruces despite the existence of independant sources that say otherwise, is proof of your bias and your downplaying of a massacre. Once again, here are a few international non partisan independent sources that confirm dozens of civilains being killed and injured by the security forces;

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STxLv_cluBE

2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/27/pakistan-army-and-police-accused-of-firing-on-imran-khan-supporters . quote from the Guardian article : ""The Guardian witnessed at least five patients with bullet wounds in one hospital, which was surrounded by police. A doctor who was on duty in the emergency ward on Tuesday night said he had treated more than 40 injured patients, several of whom had been shot. “At least seven have died and four are in critical condition in the hospital,” he said. “Eight more have been admitted to the hospital with bullet wounds.” The doctor, who requested anonymity for his safety, said there had been an attempt to cover up any fatalities. “All records of dead and injured have been confiscated by authorities. We are not allowed to talk. Senior government officials are visiting the hospital to hide the records,” he said."

You are furthermore, purposefully being pedantic with the title solely to minimize and obfuscate the actions of the government and the security forces (that being killing and injuring dozens of protestors). Trank1133 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a very POV title you are suggesting, I posted the sources for do-or-die name, I can provide countless more. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki.0hlic A discussion that is not grounded in policy holds no weight. Consensus is not formed based on the personal preferences of editors. In your move edit summary, you mentioned that sources refer to it as “do-or-die” on their own accord. What exactly do you mean by that? Regardless of whether the sources use the term independently or it was assigned by the organizers, the common name is still determined by the sources. However, to challenge your claim of “on their own accord,” here is Imran wants do-or-die protest; senior PTI leaders fear it may backfire. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown - Here are 6 sources, including a US Embassy advisory and a report from BBC, that call the protest how the organizers intended. The protest name hasn't been editorialized for a particular POV.

• PTI’s ‘final call’ still on: CM Gandapur in Mansehra
• IK gives final call for anti-govt march
• PTI convoys yet to reach Islamabad for much hyped ‘final call’ protest
• ‘Final call meant a final call’: PTI adamant as govt goes extra mile to blunt ‘final call enthusiasm’
• Islamabad: Imran Khan supporters pushed back from heart of barricaded Pakistan capital
• Security Alert: U.S. Mission to Pakistan (November 23, 2024)

I believe this should settle it.- Wiki.0hlic ^(talk)

I have created Islamabad Massacre 2024 (Draft). And I support creating a permanent Islamabad Massacre 2024 page. Massacre may be related to a protest movement. All massacres perhaps occur in some context. But it is a distinct event in scale, scope and sanctity. Like My Lai Massacre must be distinguished from Vietnam war, the massacre that took place in Islamabad must not be confused by the country-wide protests that culminated in the same city. Wikipedia:Article titles Titles should reflect the specific subject covered by the article. If November 2024 Islamabad unrest refers to a larger period of protests that are ongoing, and Islamabad Massacre to a specific violent act, separate titles help readers differentiate the scope of each article. Wikipedia: Notability (massacre was noted in legislature of various countries and documented by international news organization as a distinct event) criteria favors separate pages. Wikipedia:Summary Style suggests that a fuller treatment of an event that led to hundreds of deaths and injuries should have its own page. (NOR) will be better met if massacre just documents facts of casualties, injuries and loss of property, rather than an interpretation of a larger political movement. And the less interpretation that is involved, the better the conformance of the article to (NPOV). Anasim (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2024

Change the title RealAdil (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Was this article written by someone who supports killing protestors due to political differences?

The title, the death toll, the content all read as though the person who wrote this article has a bias against PTI and supports the killing of their supporters in islamabad by the government. This page has also refused to accept any civilians were killed or injured by the government despite this being verified by both local and foreign press, (link to foreign press reporting on this matter: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2md1jvrnvo , https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/27/pakistan-army-and-police-accused-of-firing-on-imran-khan-supporters) quote from the Guardian article : ""The Guardian witnessed at least five patients with bullet wounds in one hospital, which was surrounded by police. A doctor who was on duty in the emergency ward on Tuesday night said he had treated more than 40 injured patients, several of whom had been shot. “At least seven have died and four are in critical condition in the hospital,” he said. “Eight more have been admitted to the hospital with bullet wounds.” The doctor, who requested anonymity for his safety, said there had been an attempt to cover up any fatalities. “All records of dead and injured have been confiscated by authorities. We are not allowed to talk. Senior government officials are visiting the hospital to hide the records,” he said." 39.51.97.151 (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

See the Government Crackdown section, it says this: Official sources told The Guardian there had been 17 civilian deaths from army and paramilitary gunfire and hundreds more had been injured. Doctors at hospitals in Islamabad said they had received multiple patients with gunshot wounds. The Guardian reported that they witnessed at least five patients with bullet wounds in one hospital, which was surrounded by police. A doctor in an emergency ward said he had treated more than 40 injured patients, several of whom had been shot. "At least seven have died and four are in critical condition in the hospital". Drop Site News stated that "harrowing images have already begun circulating on social media of bloodied corpses of PTI activists and protestors".

However, if you have any further doubts that this is biased I can fix them. Titan2456 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

look at the article, it still says under casualties;

"Independent sources

4 security personnel

2 unknown"

which is blatantly, objectively, false. civilians being killed by security forces is now a fact accepted by numerous non partisan sources, including foreign press, (Link to BBC urdu report where they interview doctors who state numbers above 55 of those shot, includes both death and injured, from a single hospital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STxLv_cluBE&t=310s ). only people denying the killing of civilians are the government and security forces accused of carrying out the killing. furthermore the death toll for both PTI claim and those from independent sources of civilians is more than 4 as demonstrated by the guardian article you have yourself quoted. The majority of the articles content, including the title points towards obfuscation and support/justification for the killings. Trank1133 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I will improve the article with this source by the end of today, if you can write the sentence you would like to add with the sources I can add it for you. Titan2456 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Under Casualties, second paragraph this; "The information circulating through journalists and social media appears to be based on anonymous sources, without any verifiable evidence to support it." shoudl be removed as it reads more as an opinion being provided as a statement of fact. Trank1133 (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Titan2456 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Trank1133 Anything else that should be added? Titan2456 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Title

I think the name November 2024 Islamabad unrest is fine for now and there is no need to redirect it back to the nonsensical name "PTI do-or-die protest". Neither government nor PTI called it as 'do-or-die protest' but as PTI Final Call Protest ( WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION ) and after the security services crack-down and mass killings of unarmed protestors as "Islamabad Massacre" by PTI and some media outlets.

I think we are downplaying here the fact that at least 17+ unarmed civilians were gunned down by security agencies according to The Guardian newspaper. So what started as a political protest turned in to a tragedy and a possible 'massacre'. Of course the title need not be contentious but wiki page name should reflect the whole event. Either revert back to 'November 2024 Islamabad unrest' page or we need a better title than "PTI do-or-die protest" to capture the whole incident/event and its aftermath. Wertk (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think “Islamabad massacre” should be the title, there are multiple pages like Adra massacre which officially involve deaths in the low tens. The Government of Syria denies the massacre but the page is still called as such, same logic should be applied here.

Titan2456 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It can be renamed as a massacre if the name gets picked up enough in local and international press, but so far, I have only seen The Economic Times describe it in the title but attribute it to PTI, most others just call it a brutal or violent crackdown. 2021 Pakistani protests & October 2021 Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan protests would also have to be renamed as massacres. Best to probably keep it as November 2024 Islamabad Protests and move it into the Category:Massacres of protesters in Asia. Canned Knight (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wertk Neither government nor PTI called it as 'do-or-die protest', ROFL, what is this, do you folks really do some research before speaking:

• Imran wants do-or-die protest; senior PTI leaders fear it may backfire
• PTI's 'do-or-die' protest call to trigger crackdown, warns Sanaullah
• Marwat raises doubts on PTI's 'do-or-die' Nov 24 protest

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe @Wiki.0hlic already provided you with a counter-argument with reputable sources including US embassy.

Btw: do you have a reading comprehension problem?. The phrases do-or-die, all-out protest etc were used to describe then upcoming PTI November 24th protest, which was named as Final Call protest. Now go ahead do a little Google news search on 'PTI Final Call protest' and read up.

• PTI convoys yet to reach Islamabad for much hyped ‘final call’ protest
• Imran Khan gives ‘final call’ for protest on Nov 24
• Ali Amin Gandapur arrives in Swabi to lead PTI final call protest
• Imran Khan issues ‘final call’ for protest in Islamabad on Nov 24

+many more sources. (I can start listing them all here but that would be a waste of time).

Not to mention, we now need to acknowledge violent government crack-down against un-armed protesters and the title need to do justice to that fact as well. Wertk (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wertk Did I ever claim that it is not called “final call”? Both names are used in the sources, but more sources refer to it as “do-or-die.” Yes, “do-or-die” is a phrase, but phrases and idioms are part of the language, and article titles are derived from the language itself, not outside of it. A phrase or idiom can be used as a title if more sources use it to describe an event. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

"more sources refer to it as “do-or-die". This is factually not true. A basic Google news search will dispel this false notion.

Google Trends: PTI Final Call vs PTI do-or-die. ("PTI do or die" does not even register in the top queries, meanwhile 'final call 24 november' was a breakout trend)

Google News:

• "PTI do or die" About 2,120 results
• "PTI final call" About 19,900 results

You will find the same pattern/frequency in both mainstream & general news outlets. | Case closed. Wertk (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of credible sources

User:Canned Knight, Could you clarify why you reverted my edits without providing an explanation in the edit summary? WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Rechecking the edit history, it seems I accidently removed some content by accident probably when I was editing the infobox. not sure how the Geo News part in the lead was remove, can only guess that due to the somewhat similar time between edits and the edit must have got overwritten Canned Knight (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegedly

@WikiEnthusiast1001 Why did you remove the word “allegedly” from the photo caption? On Wikipedia, what matters is not just what is visible but what the sources explicitly state. I included quotes from the source to avoid confusion or disputes, yet you still disregarded them. The wording from the source, as included in the caption, clearly justifies the use of the word “allegedly.” Additionally, “allegedly” is necessary because the source does not confirm with certainty that the personnel involved belong to the Pakistan Rangers. Pakistan's security forces have been accused of pushing a man off a stack of cargo containers during Tuesday's protests in the capital Islamabad, where crowds demanded the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan….BBC Verify has approached the Pakistani Rangers - whose officers were allegedly involved in the incident - for comment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

See the first source Titan2456 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We have a source that uses cautionary language, so why shouldn’t we adopt the same approach on Wikipedia? On contentious topics, I believe we should always use cautionary language to minimise conflict and disputes. If the BBC can employ cautionary language, we can and should do the same on Wikipedia for NPOV reasons—unless our goal is to invite conflict unnecessarily. Furthermore, the first source does not mention Pakistan Rangers, so if we choose not to use the word “allegedly,” then Pakistan Rangers should be omitted from the caption entirely. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I also brought up the exact same reason for this source for this information: “The official Twitter account of Imran Khan was involved in disseminating false information by sharing a fabricated video purportedly showing post-election rigging.” on Allegations of Rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election, but you removed the “alleged” I added there on a contentious topic. Also, the source says Pakistan Rangers, you can’t deflect the blame from who pushed the man of the container when the source says that. Titan2456 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The first source does not mention “Pakistan Rangers” and states, Pakistani security forces pushed a protester off a 25-foot tall stack of shipping containers as they were accused of opening fire on supporters of Imran Khan at a huge demonstration in Islamabad. The second source refers to Pakistan Rangers but uses the word “alleged.” Therefore, we must either follow the first source and remove Pakistan Rangers or follow the second source and include the word “alleged.” I am not addressing content unrelated to this topic here, and I suggest you do the same—refer to WP:POINT. You have been doing this for some time now, attempting to make a point by linking unrelated topics. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced term

@Wiki.0hlic Our earlier discussion was exclusively about the article title “PTI do-or-die protest,” where I accepted the consensus and refrained from reverting the article to that title. However, if reliable sources describe the protest as “do-or-die,” then, in line with WP:NPOV, we should include both terms, “the final call” and “do-or-die.” Many Wikipedia articles feature multiple names in the lead section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: - as @Wertk: clearly outlined above, the term "do-or-die" is a figure of speech that some news outlets have used to editorialise the Final Call. That does not fulfill the criteria of it being called that in scholarly work. When compared on Google Trends, PTI Final Call vs PTI do-or-die, both terms are an order of magnitude apart with the latter not even registering as a search trend. If people in Pakistan are not searching for it with that name why should Wikipedia include it prominently as if it were called that? But why were the people not searching for it? There is a reason for that: the organisers branded it as "Final Call". A 2.2m subscriber channel of Khan's, broadcasted this message on November 23rd to encourage mass participation in the protest on Nov 24th. This more than fulfills the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME, which is important since the article concerns itself with said protest and its aftermath, and there is no need to name it otherwise. -Wiki.0hlic ^(talk)

This discussion is not about article titling. The criteria for titling articles differ from what can be included within the article. WP:COMMONNAME or Google Trends data is irrelevant here. Wikipedia has no policy stating that something cannot be included in an article if people are not searching for it. The claim that “do-or-die” is merely a figure of speech is not applicable in this context. While it is a figure of speech, the protest was explicitly referred to using this term. PTI leaders initially introduced the term, and although they later shifted to “the final call” after facing criticism, sources continued to use “do-or-die” even after the protest, as evidenced by those cited in the article. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources report. I would have considered your argument about some sources editorialising “the final call” as “do-or-die” if only a few sources had done so, but since numerous sources used this term, it warrants inclusion under WP:NPOV. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with that assessment. And I am not framing my argument in context of article titling, I am extrapolating WP:COMMONNAME onto the major event being discussed by this article since it does not discuss anything beyond the protest and its aftermath. The term do-or-die is an editorialisation with a negative connotation. Also, share WP:RS for the claim "PTI leaders initially introduced the term, and although they later shifted to “the final call” after facing criticism". Meanwhile, let's build consensus on this with other editors who have significantly contributed to this article. Pinging @Titan2456:, @Sa1e24:, @Canned Knight:, @WikiEnthusiast1001:.-Wiki.0hlic ^(talk)

No consensus can override what reliable sources clearly describe and what is required by WP:NPOV. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a PR site for political parties that we should drop the terms with negative connotations despite them being supported by reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Mass removal of information

@SheriffIsInTown you have mass removed cited information on the premise of “self-published source” [1][2] I hope you know that WP:SELFPUBLISH is a very serious claim. The source you are saying I published was written by Ryan Grim, as such I am reverting your edits as these are not blog posts but are actual news reports especially the Drop Site News one. Both sources are put precociously with attribution to who wrote them. One is a news report by Drop Site News (journalist Ryan Grim) while one is a YouTube video by Member of the British Parliament George Galloway, there is no way these can be self-published. Titan2456 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

“Self-published” doesn’t mean that you were the one who published the content. In this case, “self-published” refers to the fact that Drop Site News is owned by Ryan Grim, making it self-published since he is publishing his own content on a platform he owns. The claim in the YouTube video is attributed to Adil Raja, a non-notable figure who has been court-martialed by the Pakistan Army. Due to his lack of notability and potential bias against the Pakistan Army, his opinion cannot be considered reliable. Moreover, Grim’s credibility is in question, as there have been reports linking him to PTI and Raoof Hasan. Therefore, based on these concerns, I will be reverting the changes and kindly ask that you do not reinstate them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Genuinely asking:What? Self-published exactly means that the editor created the citation themselves, yes Ryan Grim published it and it mentions that in the text how is that self-publishing? The Drop Site News report is very notable and can be considered RS, even still I was precautious when adding it and mentioned the authors. I am pininging closely involved editors in this article to reach consensus, as the exclusion reasons are very weird especially for the Drop Site News one: @Wiki.0hlic, @Trank1133 @Canned Knight, @Sa1e24 @WikiEnthusiast1001. Titan2456 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also I’m pretty sure you breached 3RR on this blue lock page. Titan2456 (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No, self-published does not mean that editors published it. As I explained earlier, self-published means the author who wrote the content also owns the publishing platform. Ryan Grim owns Drop Site News, which he established in July 2024. The reliability of that source is questionable. Furthermore, Grim has been in contact with Raoof Hasan, as evidenced by these sources,[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] raising doubts about his credibility and neutrality. Why do you ping the whole junta whenever there is a conflict? We have neutral forums such as WP:3O and WP:DRN. Do you ever see me pinging anyone? You only do so because you are confident you’ll receive support from these editors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be an instance of WP:CANVASS in my view. Among the editors you pinged, one has had conflicts with me on multiple pages and participated in an ANI case you initiated against me. Another referred to me as a “lackey of the current government” in a prior discussion. A third had disputes with me in earlier threads and on the Qazi Faez Isa article, while another engaged in an intense debate with me over article titling. You are aware of the positions these editors hold. Sending notifications with the intent to secure favorable outcomes rather than achieve genuine consensus aligns with the definition of WP:CANVASS. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As for this claim of me Canvassing: Why do you ping the whole junta whenever there is a conflict? We have neutral forums such as WP:3O and WP:DRN. Do you ever see me pinging anyone? You only do so because you are confident you’ll receive support from these editors.

1. It is not my fault you have had previous content disputes with every major contributor to this page, I pinged all the major editors for consensus, if you think I left out a major editor feel free to ping them. Pinging is not bad but canvassing is, by pinging every major contributor how can I be canvassing?
2. “Every time there is a conflict”? Now that you have made this claim, provide further information on my supposed “everytime” pinging as this is the second time in all my contributions to Wikipedia that I have tagged majority of users involved in a page.
3. In what context are you calling the major contributors of this page a “junta”?

More importantly, I have requested a Third Opinion for this issue. Titan2456 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Even though I did keep the citation from George Galloway some time ago, as a source I now believe that its reliability and notability are weak, being essentially statements on a talkshow from two individuals outside of Pakistan. As for Drop Site News the website itself seems to be down, but it seems to count as self-published, although in my opinion it does reach a level of notability Canned Knight (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note for WP:3O volunteer: PTI has a history of hiring paid foreign lobbyists to promote their agenda and influence opinion in western hemisphere countries.[9] Such lobbyists are unlikely to admit they are being compensated by a particular party, as such an admission would damage their credibility. The writings of Ryan Grim, along with the strong language he uses against the Pakistani government and army, suggest a clear bias and possible agenda. Given reports of his participation in a virtual meeting with PTI leaders and WhatsApp communication with PTI spokesperson Raoof Hassan,[10], [11], [12] I believe his work should not be considered a credible source for political matters related to Pakistan. There are numerous other reliable sources covering Pakistan’s political situation, so it would be better to rely on those instead of sensational material from a potentially compromised journalist. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

@SheriffIsInTown and Titan2456: Thank you for requesting a third opinion. As a reminder, this is a lightweight, informal process where an uninvolved editor aims to help two editors resolve a disagreement, but it's not binding or mandatory. Technically, there is a third editor involved in the discussion now, but because Canned Knight (talk · contribs)'s comment was added after the WP:3O request was made and is primarily background information, I am still willing to offer a third opinion. Firstly, to clarify, WP:SELFPUBLISH means that the source is published by the author, such as when someone uses a service like Kindle Direct Publishing to print a book without the involvement of a publishing house and professional editors, or when someone uploads a post to a blog, social media site, or newsletter. It has nothing to do with the relationship between a Wikipedia editor and the source they cite; that would be a matter related to WP:SELFCITE or WP:OR. With that in mind, I just want to share that—as I read the previous conversation—SheriffIsInTown was in no way accusing Titan2456 of any sort of misconduct by describing the Ryan Grimm source as self-published, but was describing the reliability of the source. This third opinion is about the content of the article, not editor conduct, but to allay potential irritation stemming from a misunderstanding, and make sure we're proceeding on a shared definition of self-published, I think that's important to clarify. Drop Site News is a newsletter, published on Substack, and Ryan Grimm (a cofounder and contributor) is a journalist who AFAICT is not a subject matter expert on Pakistan. That would lean it towards being regarded as an unusable self-published source, however, if you got to their about page, you can see that they have a large staff including a number of editors, suggesting that they are more like a startup news organization than a blog. So I checked their assessment by Media Bias/Fact Check, which suggests that while having a clear political lean, they are generally reliable and stand up to external fact checking. From some quick searching, I cannot see evidence that they are often cited by other news sources as reliable, so they don't stand up to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If Drop Site News continues to be cited by editors for a while, it may be worth having a discussion on the reliable sources notice board or an RFC to see if they count as as reliable despite being fundamentally self-published, since independent investigative groups are a new and growing part of the journalism industry. At this time, in my opinion, there is not enough evidence in favor of Drop Site News being an exception to the policy on self-published sources to overcome the general rule against using self published sources as supports for claims, any claims supported by Drop Site News fail to be verifiably sourced in reliable sources, and should be removed unless an alternate source can be found and cited. . — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinion I accept this. However, just a clarification I do not believe that Drop Site News is good enough for being used as a source for a fact, which is why I added it in a precautious claim / attribution format with "Drop Site News reported..." so I think that might work.Titan2456 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Also apologies to SheriffIsInTown for the misunderstanding and if my tone seemed frustrated but I am still seeking a response for the conduct mentioned above. Titan2456 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and I appreciate that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem but I am still waiting for clarification of your statements mentioned in my above comment, which can be perceived as aggressive, as well as some claims which are wrong. In your words, When you find out that you were wrong, be a gentleman. Regards -- Titan2456 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown still waiting… Titan2456 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

First point of WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL says that I need to clarify with the user who made such remarks, WP:DROPTHESTICK is bringing up old or solved content disputes, while I am referring to conduct. Titan2456 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is clear enough Drop Site News is a newsletter, published on Substack, and Ryan Grimm (a cofounder and contributor) is a journalist who AFAICT is not a subject matter expert on Pakistan. and any claims supported by Drop Site News fail to be verifiably sourced in reliable sources, and should be removed unless an alternate source can be found and cited., as they emphasized it in bold. Based on the above-quoted text, what you are proposing would not be okay. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough analysis. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)