Talk:Imran Khan

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

Issues with the article preventing GAN

These are the main issues preventing the article from reaching GA level, I will make these changes soon, @SheriffIsInTown, if you oppose a specific one then I would be willing to request a Third Opinion or an appropriate noticeboard as a solution.

Per WP:WEIGHT, this section is too long for one journalists’ opinion, especially on a BLP. Also, this seems very promotional against Khan. Solution is to trim this section to 1-3 sentences:

Catherine Bennet writing for The Guardian raised concerns over his candidacy due to his controversial statements and affiliations. She pointed to remarks, such as calling Osama bin Laden a "martyr" and his expressed support for the Taliban, particularly regarding their policies on women's education and his views on rape. Khan's suggestions that women must dress modestly to prevent sexual violence were condemned as victim-blaming,[1] undermining efforts to combat gender-based violence and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. These perspectives conflict with Oxford's commitment to diversity, equality, and inclusion. With strong alternative candidates like Lady Elish Angiolini, who prioritises accessibility and social justice, she argues that Khan's candidacy poses a risk to the university's reputation and progressive ideals. She contends that his views indicate a broader disregard for women's rights, rendering him an unsuitable representative for an institution dedicated to equality and safeguarding individual rights.[2]

Unnecessary amounts of opinion pieces and Op-eds rather than encyclopedic facts, it would be better to remove these entirely, considering most of these are violations of WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:INTEXT anyways.

After Imran Khan's vote of no-confidence, economist Atif Mian said that Imran Khan "inherited a bad economy but left it in even worse shape." Mian further criticised the PTI government for the state of the economy.[1]

Farzana Shaikh, from think-tank Chatham House, said that Munir may have faced difficulties when he raised the corruption allegations with Khan.[1]

Michael Kugelman, from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said "Khan may have a genuine commitment to combat corruption, but the sheer scale of the problem — not to mention the power of vested interests that don't want a change in the status quo — underscores that this continues to be an uphill battle. Anti-corruption is one of those goals that is so much easier to envision when in the opposition than inside the system. Khan has learned that the hard way".[1]

In an opinion editorial wrote in March 2020, Ayesha Siddiqa wrote Khan "appeared confused and not in charge of the situation. From poorly explaining the risks associated with the spread of the deadly coronavirus to badly calculating the pros and cons of a lockdown, the Pakistan Prime Minister has looked clueless".[1] 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".[2] In April 2020, the government's responses led to pandemic-related response confusion,[3][4] being "lackadaisical" and having "deprived the country of a clear sense of direction."[5]

Premiership Section

The premiership section needs to be heavily condensed as per the summary style, while concerns above mentioned of undue weight also need to be implemented. Other concerns about NPOV and the the whole section remain as it sticks out like a sore thumb on the BLP, violating basic BLP rules let alone the GA criteria, but solutions are being discussed for this so hopefully it will be resolved. The image mentioned above is also a high-quality image showing him with the Prime Ministers’ flag in the back, in an official government space, it would be better to include it once the summary of his premiership stabilizes. For now I am adding a tag to indicate that it violates the summary style.

Citations

Citations will need to be made more reliable, which I am willing to complete 100% of this task. Overall sources and books will need to be included while website citations can be converted to news citations, with reliable authors and publishers.

Post-Premiership section

The entire post-premiership section needs a lot of work, which I am also willing to do 100% of. I will leave my planned changes at the talk page prior to making them to achieve consensus. Titan2456 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Let’s address them individually. I am open to removing the Catherine Bennet paragraph, provided the subsequent paragraph is also removed. We can remove the Catherine Bennet paragraph along with the following one. Asad Iqbal writing for The Oxford Blue, Daniel Hannan writing for Zeteo and Peter Oborne writing for the Middle East Eye stated that Imran Khan is the ideal pick for chancellor, due to his achievements, primarily citing moral strength and his personal values as reasons. Oborne had concerns about human rights and media freedomunder Khan's premiership. Oborne further said that Khan would be the only candidate that cares about the plight of the Palestinians. He was also praised by Iqbal for his establishment of the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Memorial Hospital, which Iqbal stated was another reason for Khan being fit for the role. Iqbal went on to praise Khan’s flagship Ehsaas Programme and called Khan a "champion of women’s participation in governance". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree Titan2456 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the newly added opinion by Daniel Hannan, I have reinstated the previously removed content. Hannan's perspective creates an imbalance. The reinstated content is necessary to present a more comprehensive and balanced narrative. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEnthusiast1001 refer to this, it has been agreed upon that we will neither include Catherine Bennet's, Daniel Hannan's or anyones opinion on the chancellorship section as it has been agreed that most opinion pieces should be removed from this article. I have removed both opinion pieces. Titan2456 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe we should adhere to the guidelines outlined in WP:RSEDITORIAL on this issue. According to this policy, editorials and op-eds authored by notable figures can be included. Both Hannan and Bennett meet the notability criteria. While we might agree today to exclude opinions by such figures, there’s no guarantee that future edits won’t add their viewpoints, potentially resulting in an imbalance since the policy permits their inclusion. Therefore, it’s more prudent to retain opinions from notable individuals while removing those from non-notable sources. I don’t think we should be making compromises here; what aligns with the policy should remain, and what does not should be excluded. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456 @SheriffIsInTown What are your thoughts on this? Shouldn't this be removed from the Political Ideology section, since it primarily discusses his ideology throughout his career rather than during his prime ministership? The points mentioned are already covered in other sections of the article.

"After the result of 2018 Pakistani general election, Khan said he would try to remake Pakistan based on the ideology of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. During his government, Khan addressed a balance of payments crisis with a bailout from the IMF. He presided over a shrinking current account deficit, and limited defence spending to curtail the fiscal deficit, leading to some general economic growth. He enacted policies that increased tax collection in Pakistan, as well as investments, and the energy policy of Pakistan under Khan saw his government committed to a renewable energy transition. Khan's government also launched the social safety net and poverty alleviation Ehsaas Programme and the Plant for Pakistan initiative, which expanded the protected areas of Pakistan, and he presided over the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan, which caused economic turmoil and rising inflation in the country and threatened Khan's political position.

Khan's failure to revive the economy of Pakistan and the rising inflation rate caused him political problems. Despite his promised anti-corruption campaign, the perception of corruption in Pakistan worsened during his rule. He was accused of political victimisation of opponents and clamping down on freedom of expression and dissent. On 10 April 2022, Khan became the country's first prime minister to be ousted through a no-confidence motion vote in parliament. On 22 August 2022, Khan was charged by the Pakistani police under anti-terror laws after Khan accused the police and judiciary of detaining and torturing his close aide." WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I support retaining the criticism related to COVID-19 management as it constitutes a minor portion of a broader section that largely highlights achievements and successes. The same applies to Atif Mian's criticism. The premiership and post-premiership sections reflect consensus versions developed by multiple editors. I do not support removing any content, except moving the content from premiership section to premiership article. The summary must be balanced and neutral. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

While I generally agree (e.g. the imprisonment section should focus more on the legal aspect rather than opinions regarding a proposed Oxford candidacy), just for future reference I do not think it is necessary to refer to editorials and oped's as being editorials and opeds in the article itself, as seen in the 2024 United States presidential election#Analyst Assessment, 2024 Joe Biden–Donald Trump presidential debate#Reception and aftermath, Economic policy of the first Donald Trump administration#Overall evaluations, and the Imran Khan#Public image section. It would be better to follow Wikipedia's general style of a neutral tone "Journalist X wrote/said in Y paper that ..."; I don't believe in my opinion that it is important to inform the reader that the cited source is an "opinion editorial" in various areas Canned Knight (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should follow WP:OPINION and WP:INTEXT on that. The summary should be short, and including so many opinions (whether positive or negative) is completely unnecessary. Instead, we should rely on encyclopedic facts. The summary should just include what actually happened (eg. Job growth, inflation rise, current account rise, deficit decrease) in very short sentences, not what one person thought about it in specific. We would naturally have to give more weight on mentioning facts which are confirmed to have happened. Titan2456 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"The summary should be short" does not mean we should discard content on which multiple editors have spent considerable time and effort. The summary should indeed be concise, neutral, and balanced, but only after moving the Premiership section to Premiership article and ensuring that article is neutral and balanced. If main article contains promotional POV then summary would end up containing promotional POV as well which we need to avoid. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinions from significant people and analysts like Ayesha Siddiqa can be moved to the premiership article, Atif Mian’s has already been moved, but a separate section called “analyses” or “opinions” should be created on that article. Opinions from random op-ed writers hold no encyclopedic value and should be removed entirely as they are also violating WP:BLPBALANCE, but the opinions of significant people might deserve some inclusion on the premiership article. As for this article, again the summary should only talk about facts and what actually happened, not opinions and the aftermath as WP:DETAIL says. Titan2456 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with creating a separate section titled Analysis or Opinions, as it violates WP:NPOV. Opinions should be placed in the relevant sections: for example, opinions about the economy should go in the Economy section, and those about COVID-19 should be included in the COVID-19 section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree with everything else mentioned though? Titan2456 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, only the opinions of notable individuals and editorials of WP:RS news outlets should be included in the premiership article. However, regarding the summary, I am not entirely opposed to including opinions. The extent to which opinions can be incorporated into the summary will depend on the content in the premiership article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with @Canned Knight that it is unnecessary to label editorials and op-eds explicitly as such within the article. It is generally understood that content attributed to a specific author or journalist represents their opinion. Regarding the Imprisonment and Chancellorship sections, both are subsections of the Post-Premiership section. Since the Chancellorship section is not part of the Imprisonment section, the current structure works fine. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

Add Nickname of 'Murshid' as well. Here is the reference: Mobilising PTI workers from Punjab: Aleema informs IK about Gohar’s failure - Pakistan - Business Recorder Adilch (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No indication in cited reference that it is a surname, let alone a WP:COMMONNAME. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Press freedom

@Canned Knight, as part of the process of getting this to GA, the press freedom section has too much information that does not directly involve Imran Khan. As for the HRW report, every year the HRW has given a report on the poor state of affairs about human rights in Pakistan, they gave one for Shehbaz Sharif's, Gillani's and Nawaz Sharif's government with very similar wording [1][2][3]. I don't think this much information should be added to this BLP or any Prime Ministers' BLP, and should be merged into press freedom in Pakistan, along with all the other HRW reports. Importantly, most of these sources have no mention of Imran Khan at all, which is why this could be considered as WP:OR, with the 2019 HRW report not blaming any suppression committed by Khan, the Reporters Without Borders source not mentioning him, the third not mentioning him at all again, the Dawn source mentioning him only once in a quotation, the World Association of Newspapers not mentioning him at all again, IPI not blaming any suppression committed by Khan. Only the last source, a PDF mentions Khan explicitly. This information should be removed, thank you.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) in its World Report 2019, covering events from late 2017 to November 2018, stated that the government continued to "suppress dissenting voices in NGOs and the media under the guise of national security." In April 2019, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) "condemn[ed]" directives of the Interior Ministry and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate journalists who posted images of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Earlier, the interior ministry claimed there was a "targeted social media campaign planned/executed" during the visit of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and ordered an inquiry into online criticism after a similar probe proposal had been "thwarted" 20-days before by the government.

In June 2021, the World Association of Newspapers (WAN-IFRA), International Publishers Association (IPA) and International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called on the government to retract proposals to establish the Pakistan Media Development Authority (PMDA) which would centralise all media regulation into a single body. The three groups criticised the proposal and said they were "particularly alarmed" by provisions providing for Media Tribunals that would be "vested with the power to hand down punishments of up to three years in jail and fines of up to 25 million Pakistani rupees".

In December 2021, the International Press Institute (IPI) said "the government has shown increasing intolerance to critical journalism" and "[t]he armed forces have also played a key role in stifling press freedom in the country. Cases of abduction, physical attacks, and torture of journalists have become commonplace." IPI also criticised the disruption of newspaper circulation and the "tactics" of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) "to limit independent news coverage by cable operators news channels". In an open letter to Prime Minister Imran Khan, IPI "expressed grave concerns" over a proposed ordinance to establish the PDMA.

The Pakistan Press Foundation's (PPF) Press Freedom in Pakistan 2021-22 report documented 2 abductions, 41 assaults, 13 arrests, 23 threats, and 7 legal actions against media professionals, along with raids on journalists' homes and press clubs. It criticized online censorship, the FIA's overreach, PEMRA's blanket bans, and government rhetoric but commended the "Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Bill, 2021" as a "significant first step."

Titan2456 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would still remain hesitant when removing these sources, given that; many mention the government itself, which he headed; HRW giving low scores for Gilani and both Sharifs does not give any reason for removing; @WikiEnthusiast1001 removed a source that mentioned Imran Khan, so we could just add that back; he held the ministry of interior portfolio during the period the Dawn article was published; PDMA was proposed by his government; and that the following in Covid-19 response would have to be removed for being considered WP:OR:

- "Khan's strategy proved effective, when he was praised by the World Health Organization (WHO) for his government's response to the virus by establishing temporary isolation wards".

- "... the Imperial College of London ranked Pakistan at fourth for coronavirus reproduction in the country based on data from 20 July ..."

- "In September 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Pakistan was "among countries from whom the international community should learn how to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic." (The source only describes IK chairing NSC meeting)

Since these sources do not mention Khan, especially given that pandemic responses are also driven by NGOs, provincial governments, etc. While I would not propose their removal, if the press freedom section were to be moved then so would the Covid-19 response. Canned Knight (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Canned Knight (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

An ongoing and deliberate effort appears to be aimed at selectively removing criticism under various contexts, whether policy-related or not, while attempting to retain positive information, even when it fails to meet the same standards applied to critical content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Canned Knight, the allegations of press freedom violations do not fall on Imran Khan, and fall on his government, which I still think deserves some mention in this BLP, but 3 paragraphs based of off sources that do not mention him is unnecessary. I would follow the WP:WEIGHT clause of NPOV here, as too much of an in depth explanation on poor press freedom under his government, despite sources not mentioning him as responsible seems to be unnecessary. As for the COVID-19 section, I agree that it is counted as WP:OR the same way, but the second source of that clearly mentions that Khan himself is lauded for the smart lockdowns. The press freedom violations can be moved to Press freedom in Pakistan, while the WHO’s praise can be moved to COVID-19 in Pakistan accordingly.

More importantly, I have been working on a short summary that follows the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for a week, and my plan was to just replace the imbalanced and OR areas of the section with a neutral summary, but due to issues it is taking longer than I expected, which is why I am adding tags for now on areas with issues until I finish writing a summary. Titan2456 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not want your efforts to go wasted but the previous imbalanced summary resulted in explosion of content and if you are writing the summary, we expect the same issues to arise as you have been seen having POV issues and misrepresenting the sources. Don’t be surprised if your summary gets rewritten extensively by others including myself. Also, please understand that no content will be removed; it will instead be moved to the premiership article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for my efforts, can you be a little bit more specific on where I misinterpreted sources. I am open to working with you so I want to stay on-topic and focus on this article. My summary is almost complete. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not really hard to find misinterpretation of sources in your contributions. I can pick anyone of your contributions and find misinterpretation. The hard thing is that you ref bomb one line of misinterpreted content with three sources. The assumption might be that who is going to have time to read all three sources and find out whether there is a misrepresentation or not. Did you read all three sources yourself to come up with this one line of content? Where did you see eight companies mentioned and how did you come up with the wording that he intensified his campaign? Please have mercy on us and don’t write the summary, let someone else do it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I was really hoping for some constructive feedback, from a senior editor like yourself, something that would help me become a better editor. Your last comment Please have mercy on us and don’t write the summary, let someone else do it. has hurt me deeply, it is Wikipedia's policy to reach community consensus and work together, not exclude other editors' hard work. I understand your comment on ref bombing, however, this is misdirected, as my edit was copy-pasted directly from the Panama Papers case lead section and these references are included in this original to back up the exact same statement, which I did not have any contributions to:

Opposition politicians Imran Khan and Sheikh Rasheed petitioned the court in the aftermath of the Panama Papers leak, which uncovered links between the Sharif family and eight offshore companies.

If you feel overwhelmed and cannot give time and attention to fixing the POV/TOOMUCH summary, the least that you can do is not demotivate other editors to do so. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been trying to give constructive feedback for so long now. My time on Wikipedia is only being spent on fixing your contributions. Here is constructive feedback, do not copy content containing POV wording from one article to another, if you do, take full responsibility for your actions. First ensure that content you are copying adheres to the sources then ensure that it does not contain POV wording. Do not get carried away by political ambitions and just copy the content because it fits your POV but if you do then take full responsibility. Here is another one, "most publicized in Pakistan's history" (POV wording) and Sheikh Rasheed were not mentioned in the sources, a BLPVIO that is as well. Do you know how long it takes to read all those five sources and then fix the content which was your responsibility to begin-with when you added that content? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the press freedom section, it is entirely relevant to Imran Khan’s premiership. Once we transfer the rest of the content, we can move this section to the premiership article as well and incorporate some points from it into the summary of this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Reham Khan

You removed longstanding content under the pretext of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. The removed content does not fall under both of these policy excerpts as it is sourced to five different sources presumed to be secondary reliable sources and properly attributed to a notable Reham Khan who is the former wife of the subject. Can you please cite any specifics from these policy excerpts which dictate the removal of this content? Mere assumption by an editor that the content is gossip is not good enough reason to remove it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)