View source for Talk:Imran Khan

{{Skip to bottom}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|ipa}}
{{Pakistani English}}
{{Article history
| action1       = GAN
| action1date   = 07:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
|action1link=Talk:Imran Khan/GA1
| action1result = failed
| currentstatus = FGAN
| topic         = Sports and recreation
| itndate       = 29 July 2018
| itnlink       = Special:Diff/852575431
| itn2date      = 1 February 2024
| itn2link      = Special:Diff/1201942906
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=activepol|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Imran Khan|1=
{{WikiProject University of Oxford |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority=Low |sports-work-group=yes |sports-priority=mid}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan |importance=High |Politics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Cricket |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Pashtun |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Top 25 report|Jul 22 2018 (3)|Jul 29 2018 (17)|Apr 10 2022}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{TOC_limit|4}}
{{Archives|{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 
|format= %%i
|age=336
|index=yes
|minkeepthreads=4
|maxarchsize=100000
|numberstart=4
}}}}

== Unnecessary section ==

@[[User:SheriffIsInTown|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 [[WP:CONSENSUS|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.'' [[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] ([[User talk:Titan2456|talk]]) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

: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 [[WP:CENSOR|censoring]] any content you perceive as critical of your preferred leader and remove it arbitrarily. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] &#124; 17:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] ([[User talk:Titan2456|talk]]) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] &#124; 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::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.'' [[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] ([[User talk:Titan2456|talk]]) 23:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] &#124; 01:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::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 [[Wikipedia:Consensus|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 [[Template:Very long|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 Zardari|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:
::::::https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/18/imrankhan-pakistan-military-elections/
::::::https://www.thenation.com/article/world/imran-khan-military/
::::::https://www.firstpost.com/fwire/imran-khan-says-army-isi-will-be-kept-under-check-129145.html
::::::https://www.economist.com/asia/2024/02/12/pakistans-voters-tell-the-generals-where-to-put-it
::::::https://www.ft.com/content/ff773270-7a48-4be3-8c87-88c9b247f4e3
::::::https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/09/pakistan-military-imran-khan-prison-politics/
::::::https://web.archive.org/web/20111113022953/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C11%5C12%5Cstory_12-11-2011_pg7_26
::::::But it doesn’t include any of this… [[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] ([[User talk:Titan2456|talk]]) 05:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|How does his perceived relationship with the military fall under “public image” in the first place?}} There's actually an answer to your question within your question. ''Perceptions'' refer to how people see or interpret someone, while ''image'' refers to the public impression or reputation someone has—often shaped by perceptions, media, and presentation. So yes, his perceived relationship with the military does fall under the "public image" section. It is neither an undue nor unnecessary section when the topic is covered by reliable sources. The article must cover that aspect as well; we cannot exclude a part of his life story once it is documented in sources. Where else in the article are his relationships with [[Ahmed Shuja Pasha]] and [[Faiz Hameed]] covered? Also, where else is the perspective of [[Ashok Swain]] represented? Claims of [[WP:TOOMUCH]] are baseless here; the content in that section is reasonably detailed—except perhaps the Swain paragraph, which, in my view, may be too much for a single person's opinion. As for the links you've shared, most are opinion pieces and do not directly contradict the content of the section. I haven't seen anything in them that denies the relationships with Gul, Pasha, Islam, or Hameed as outlined. Therefore, I don't see how they can be used to balance the section. As a matter of fact Swain paragraph provides the required balance satisfactorily. You cannot just remove content which does not violate any Wikipedia policy based on a claim that something out there is not covered in the section. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] &#124; 21:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You cannot call a Wikipedia policy ''baseless'' because you disagree with it, [[WP:TOOMUCH]] clearly applies here. It applies, because in an article which you are saying is “Very Long”, what is the reason to dedicating so much detail to a point where [[Ashok Swain]] is given a whole paragraph? By this reasoning of how much [[Wikipedia:DUE|space]] should be given to some things, we should include the same (or even more) space this whole editorial by Swain:
::::::::https://scroll.in/article/1076202/how-imran-khans-polarising-battle-with-pakistans-military-could-actually-strengthen-democracy
::::::::To an article flagged by yourself for “Very Long”, and which was already ready for [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|GAN]] by two users, why add new sections? It is simply causing delays and issues. There are several editorials, and analyses by reliable sources such as [[The Nation|''The Nation'']] and ''[[Foreign Policy]]'' on the subject, but you don’t include them? But instead you include one by The New York Times? The point is, the section is a shorter form an [[Wikipedia:Attack page|attack page]], leaving out information on purpose, even linking to a main page which has many issues including violating [[WP:NPOV]]. 
::::::::And please answer my question I asked previously: If the section is not irrelevant as you claim, should every Pakistani politicians page have a “Percieved relationship with the military” section? Should I add one to [[Nawaz Sharif]]’s, to [[Bilawal Bhutto Zardari|Bilawal Bhutto]]’s? Sharif in particular was known for a relationship with [[General Zia-ul-Haq]] and General Jilani, but there seems to be no “perceived relationship with the military” there. Should I add one? I am not in favor of adding one because it is irrelevant to dedicate entire sections to topics like these, percieved relationship with Figure A, Figure B, Opinions on Thing A, Thing B. You can understand how a page already so full of information that you classify as “Very Long” is not benefited at all by a section like this. [[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] ([[User talk:Titan2456|talk]]) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::[[WP:TOOMUCH]] is an essay, not a policy—please understand the difference. I was referring to your application of that essay as baseless, not the essay itself. Both the Foreign Policy and The Nation pieces are opinion articles. As I mentioned earlier, the article was not flagged as "very long" by me; it was flagged by someone else. However, that is no excuse to omit essential details about his relationship with the military. Yes, the article should be condensed, but it should be done evenly throughout—not by selectively cutting one aspect. Your question about other articles borders on [[WP:POINTY]] and is irrelevant. There is no policy stating that all Wikipedia articles must follow the same structure. I choose not to respond to it further. As for the GAN, the article was not ready in its current state—much of the content did not adhere to the sources. I have corrected a great deal, and there is still much more to address. But you don't need to worry about it. As the article's largest contributor, I have the best interests of the article at heart and am working toward the goal of GAN and eventually FAC—but the disruptions caused by certain editors, including yourself, are becoming a hurdle to that goal. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] &#124; 02:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I wanted to raise some concerns regarding recent edits. At times, your approach comes across as though you own the article, which brings to mind the [[WP:OWN]] guideline. The article is already way too long and some of the content you've added is total nonsense or poorly sourced. For example, @[[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] is correct in saying that Nawaz Sharif had ties with Generals. Some names that come to mind are [[Zia-ul-Haq]], [[Fazle Haq]], [[Hamid Gul]], [[Ghulam Jilani Khan]], [[Asad Durrani]], and [[Mirza Aslam Beg]], yet there isn't a dedicated "perceived relationship with the military" section in his article. Similarly, there are no such sections for Shehbaz Sharif or Zardari either. @[[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] also highlighted that some of the sources used include weasel wording, which undermine the article's neutrality. To resolve this, I suggest we seek input from neutral editors to determine whether such sections are appropriate. [[User:WikiEnthusiast1001|WikiEnthusiast1001]] ([[User talk:WikiEnthusiast1001|talk]]) 10:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::No content is total nonsense if it is supported by reliable sources. Kindly point out what is poorly sourced. Do you consider Oxford University Press a poor source, or do you think Arab News and The New York Times are unreliable? The appropriate forum to raise concerns about sourcing is [[WP:RSN]]. I challenge you to take your concerns there and claim these are poor sources—the responses will be a treat to read. I have already explained in my previous comment that there is no Wikipedia policy requiring all articles to follow the same structure. Burrobert's concerns were addressed in subsequent edits. While Wikipedia policies prohibit the use of weasel wording in editors' own writing, they do not forbid the use of reliable sources that may contain vague or indirect phrasing, provided the content is properly attributed and presented with appropriate context. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] &#124; 18:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks for the suggestion that we ask neutral editors for input @[[User:WikiEnthusiast1001|WikiEnthusiast1001]], I have filed a case at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]] (DRN) involving @[[User:SheriffIsInTown|SheriffIsInTown]] as well. [[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] ([[User talk:Titan2456|talk]]) 20:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

=== RfC: Should there be a Relationship with the military section ===

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 00:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750636884}}
There is ongoing disagreement over whether the article should include the newly-added section titled "[[Imran Khan#Relationship with the military|Relationship with the military]]" as it currently does. Both the relevance of the content and the appropriateness of presenting it in a standalone section under "Public image" are being contested. This issue was previously discussed above and could not be resolved at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Imran Khan|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]], and it has now been directed here for broader input.

Should the article include a section on "Relationship with the military"? [[User:Titan2456|Titan2456]] ([[User talk:Titan2456|talk]]) 23:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

== Please update the "Political career" or relevant section to reflect the following new development reported on June 3, 2025: ==

Please update the "Political career" or relevant section to reflect the following new development reported on June 3, 2025:

On June 3, 2025, while incarcerated, Imran Khan declared himself the ''patron-in-chief'' of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), amid internal party infighting. Barrister Gohar Ali Khan remains the party chairman. According to Gohar, Khan will lead the protest movement from jail, with instructions relayed through Omar Ayub. PTI announced a nationwide protest campaign to challenge the PML-N-led government and reclaim its "stolen mandate." CM Ali Amin Gandapur has been sidelined from the protest leadership for the time being. Gohar also confirmed that negotiations with the establishment remain an open option.

'''Source:'''

* https://www.geo.tv/latest/607558-imran-khan-declares-himself-pti-patron-in-chief-amid-infighting
* https://tribune.com.pk/story/2549328/imran-khan-becomes-patron-in-chief-of-pti
* https://www.khaleejtimes.com/world/asia/jailed-pakistan-ex-pm-imran-khan-calls-for-nationwide-protests

'''Reason for update:'''

This is a notable political development involving a major Pakistani political figure. Imran Khan's declaration of himself as ''patron-in-chief'' of PTI marks a significant shift in the party's internal leadership dynamics while he remains incarcerated. It has implications for both the PTI leadership structure and the planned nationwide protest movement. The development has been covered by reliable news sources and should be included in the article for encyclopedic completeness and accuracy.

Thank you! [[User:Mhaseeb99|Mhaseeb99]] ([[User talk:Mhaseeb99|talk]]) 20:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

== Suggestion: External Link – Updated List of Legal Cases ==

I would like to suggest including the following external link under the "Legal issues" or "Controversies" section. It provides a detailed and up-to-date list of legal cases filed against Imran Khan from 2022 to 2025, along with references to publicly available news sources.

🔗 https://pakistandiary.pk/imran-khan-court-cases-list-2022-2025/

This might be a helpful addition for readers looking for a consolidated view of his ongoing legal matters.

Best regards,
Hassaan Mumtaz
A legal adviser [[User:Hassaan Mumtaz|Hassaan Mumtaz]] ([[User talk:Hassaan Mumtaz|talk]]) 06:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2025 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Imran Khan|answered=yes}}
Please remove this nonsense about Tyrian Jade being Imran Khan's daughter. It's all patwari properganda! [[User:ZXCV JJKI|ZXCV JJKI]] ([[User talk:ZXCV JJKI|talk]]) 13:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Day Creature|Day Creature]] ([[User talk:Day Creature|talk]]) 02:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)