The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Imran Khan was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cricket, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cricket articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Imran Khan is part of WikiProject Pashtun, a project to maintain and expand Pashtun-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.PashtunWikipedia:WikiProject PashtunTemplate:WikiProject PashtunPashtun
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
@WikiEnthusiast1001 The discussion at the NPOVN forum does not give you a pass to blindly remove or reduce criticism. Firstly, the discussion there pertains to the content in the main article, where the content in question was much more extensive than what is present in this article. I have already significantly reduced the criticism in the main article, and it was already minimal in this article. Nowhere in that discussion did the uninvolved editors state that criticism could simply be removed or reduced; their statements were qualified and context-dependent. That being said, I do not agree with your recent reduction of criticism further. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit summary, I did not use an opinion piece. Can you point out where it states that it's an opinion piece? I'm also directly following CMD's suggestion from the noticeboard: "The immediate reactions and commentary of journalists, other politicians, military figures, etc. should not receive much space, and the wikitext should not offer commentary either." WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an opinion piece by an unknown author from New York, written in the style of an opinion piece. As for CMD's comment, they said, "should not receive much space," which does not equate to "not receive any space." That space had already been reduced by me. Additionally, their comments do not apply to the content in this article. The content under discussion was entirely different from what is included here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to the section dealing with the nature of Imran's connection to the military. If sources use wording such as "widespread rumours", "was widely perceived", "was widely regarded", "it is widely believed", don't use them in this BLP. Use reliable sources which make direct statements. Burrobert (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown what policy or guideline states that a section contributed by multiple people cannot be reverted? WP:BRD does not have any thing about not being able to remove something contributed by multiple people, and it is best to remove the section until consensus is reached for its inclusion. I have stated the reason for its removal already: It does not fit at all in “Public Image”. It relies on 3-4 news reports/books for some old commentary, not at all mentioning his criticism of the military, especially General Bajwa (a serious NPOV violation). There is already enough information on his relationship spread throughout the article, including his removal from office explaining this. Its an unnecessary section to an article already claimed to be too long.Titan2456 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot remove content that is supported by highly reliable sources simply by citing WP:BRD, which is an essay. My point is that you are just one editor and should not unilaterally remove content added by multiple editors merely because you disagree with it. If the content is properly sourced, it should remain unless you can establish a valid reason for its removal. You cannot invoke your tendency of censoring any content you perceive as critical of your preferred leader and remove it arbitrarily. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have given several valid reasons in both my edit summary and the comment above, none of which have been contested by any editors. To be succinct, no guideline or policy says every bit of sourced content must be included and cannot be excluded, otherwise articles would go to a million words. Hence, WP:BRD is the best choice, to establish consensus for this new section to be included. I will go ahead with removing the section, but best to keep this thread open and tag all contributors to this section for a discussion on why it should be included before reinstating it. The last sentence is heavily unwarranted for a talk page discussion, I have never brought up your publicly declared support of the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz and its leader in any talk page discussion, unless you want me to. Titan2456 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you may not arbitrarily remove the content. You have not provided any valid reason for its removal. While no policy states that all sourced content must be included, likewise, no policy permits an editor to simply remove reliably sourced information without a valid justification. The word OPTIONAL is written in bold at WP:BRD—you cannot use that as a justification for removal. Which core Wikipedia policy requires that this content must be removed immediately, other than your own personal preference? That is not a valid reason for removal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time I am posting this here, I put in in the edit summary, and talk page, I even put in in italics for you, yet you claim I haven’t provided a reason? Ignoring it for the fourth time is textbook WP:IDHT:
It does not fit at all in “Public Image”. It relies on 3-4 news reports/books for some old commentary, not at all mentioning his criticism of the military, especially General Bajwa (a serious NPOV violation). There is already enough information on his relationship spread throughout the article, including his removal from office explaining this. Its an unnecessary section to an article already claimed to be too long.Titan2456 (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are policy-based reasons. Firstly, which policy states that content cannot be included if it is based on three or four news reports or books? Content sourced to even one reliable source can be included — in this case, it is supported by a multitude of sources. Which policy states that if information is old, it cannot be included? None of the information consists of opinion pieces; it is based on reliable sources and is still attributed to the authors out of an abundance of caution. His criticism of Bajwa does not fall under the "public image"; you may include it in a more appropriate section, provided you also include his praise of Bajwa, as he has praised him extensively as well. The information elsewhere in the article pertains to a different context. This section is based on sources that explicitly discuss his relationship with the military or the public perception of that relationship. I would also refer to an existing editorial consensus, as evident from multiple editors contributing to this section and to the article itself after this content was introduced. Consensus need not be established solely through discussion; it may also be demonstrated through editorial acceptance — either in the form of multiple editors contributing to the content or editing around it without removing it. In light of this, you cannot remove well-sourced content without clearly establishing a consensus for its removal. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does his perceived relationship with the military fall under “public image” in the first place? It is a WP:UNDUE unnecessary section, when the article throughout already discusses enough about his relavant relationship with the military. Secondly, that is not at all how consensus works. To explain it to you simply, consensus means the agreement of all users to include something on a page, as a user, I disagree with its inclusion for several reasons as stated above which include policy violations and unnecessary text. To be succinct, consensus is needed for its inclusion—not exclusion. And 2 users making some edits to the section is not at all “consensus”.
This section is unnecessary and WP:TOOMUCH, especially for a page where you yourself are claiming that it is too lengthy, and are placing the Very Long in-your-face template at the top, which I tried to remove but you reinstated, claiming the article is in need of condensing and shortening. Adding new sections is not the best idea when an article is already being called “very long”. Should every Pakistani politicians page have a “Percieved relationship with the military” section? Should I add one to Nawaz Sharif’s, to Bilawal Bhutto’s?
The section additionally clearly violates WP:NPOV, as it is one-sided and fails to include any mention of Khan’s opposition to several military generals and statements of “keeping the ISI under control”. If it was not one-sided, it would include this:
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Link added. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)