Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2018

The section on rigging has no sources save for the last two sentences. These should be removed from the article. 185.46.212.61 (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done There are many sources in the section, including at least one for each sentence. Fish+Karate 13:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Enclosed of relationship and Tyrain in Side bar

@SheriffIsInTown: You mentioned his relationship with Sita white on side bar, and Tyrain as her child on side bar. Both are already discussed in detail in Personal life, the side bar is meant for authentic information. Imran Khan doesn't own Tyrain White as her child, and Sita White as his relationship. The side bar should maintain his legal marriages, and his legal children which are owned publicly by him. The results should be discussed in the article, which is already mentioned at length. Please don't add Sita White, and Tyrain in side bars , they were never there since long existence of this article. This is most read and reached wikipedia article and in its stable and consistent state since long, this information is not new , so please let the article as it is , other then some new information. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: I you recall six months back you reverted my edit on Shahbaz Shareef page , where i added his marriages. I accepted your argument on same grounds, but here you could read the personal life section, it is full of such information and now the information is reaching is the side bars, which is unfair for any political personality Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, distorting the facts will not win you the argument, Sita White was in infobox for a long time until you removed her yesterday, I restored what you removed, Wikipedia does not care about legal or illegal children, Tyrian has been established as his legal child by a court order and there are numerous sources which attest that. You should first look at the article history before distorting the facts. You are claiming in summary lines that it is just based on hello magazine, are you even seeing what you are removing, there is an additional source there which you are removing and there are many sources in the personal life, sources are not required in infobox but I am still keeping them for satisfaction of editors like you. We are not going to remove information on personal likes and dislikes of editors, we will go by the sources and if sources say that she is his child then she belongs under the column for children. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: Back then you were inserting unsourced information about Sharif's marriages therefore it is absolutely different case. It is high time you review WP:BLP because it appear you're still continue adding unsourced material to our BLPs without giving a damn; (Raja Yasir Humayun Sarfraz). Now speaking of this BLP, Template:Infobox_person says to list children Only if independently notable themselves or otherwise mention Number of children (e.g., three). I don't see any of Khan's children having a standalone Wikipedia page so I would recommend we add numerical "3" instead of mentioning their names. However, If @SheriffIsInTown: can expand Family_of_Imran_Khan#Children to add some detailed biographical details about Khan's children's, I would be fine listing their individual names in the infobox as well. --Saqib (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I have restored the page to last stable version on 20:09, 7 August 2018‎, it has reverted all changes after that point , lets agree to this version of page, what ever was before, is there now. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: I do not accept your change, it is without any valid reasoning. I improved the page and cannot let those changes reverted. Saqib's argument is a valid argument and I accept that so we need to revert back to Dawn Bard's version with only change being the removal of kids' names from infobox replaced with the number 3, everything else stays the same as I edited. Relationship with those ladies is mentioned in numerous other sources, it is not just that book, when multiple sources mention it, it is no longer an allegation. Khan never denied these relationships, he enjoyed his life and might not care if we publish the names of those ladies. This article should portray him properly. The man never cared about these things then why are you trying to be his champion defender on Wikipedia. Reham's book stays as well and stays in Bibliography because it discusses the subject in length. Wikipedia does not care if it is contested in the court, the book was criticized by other individuals but Khan never said that anything written by his former wife about him is not true. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I am not champion defender of any one brother, you can see my contribution contain defending some other people from other parties as well. Ok go ahead with changes you like, the only point is that instead of attacking me, you should talk with rational argument. Please make the changes as agreed by Saqib and you, i will revert any changes further agreed changes.

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirmatory sense in sentence structure in Personal Section

@SheriffIsInTown: You have maintained the confirmatory of the events , please correct :

• About his extra martial affairs

Current His documented out of marriage relationships included Stephanie Beacham, Goldie Hawn, Kristiane Backer, Susannah Constantine, Marie Helvin, Jerry Hall, Lulu Blacker, Emma Sergeant, and Sita White Suggested: According to Indian Magazine India today his out of married relationship allegedly included Stephanie Beacham, Goldie Hawn, Kristiane Backer, Susannah Constantine, Marie Helvin, Jerry Hall, Lulu Blacker, Emma Sergeant, and Sita White. Reason The sources quoted for this text, contain one showbiz Indian magazine and other a book which quotes conversation of Jamima Gold Smith and Mr. Gold Smith , the part of sentence his documented is very strong word. Both doesn't reflect they are documented , they are alleged , this means may be he has relationship with every one of them or many be subset of them. So please don't add strong certainty reflecting facts.

• About Sita White Scandel

Current They remained in the relationship for about six years having met in 1987-88.[212] According to Sita White, Khan agreed for a child in the 1991 meeting. Tyrian Jade was born on 15 June 1992 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center but Khan, according to White's allegation, refused to accept her because she was a girl.[212], Khan had urged White to go for an abortion [212] Suggested: According to story published in the News they suspectedly remained in the relationship for about six years having met in 1987-88.[212] According to Sita White, Khan agreed for a child in the 1991 meeting. Tyrian Jade was born on 15 June 1992 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center but Khan, according to White's allegation, refused to accept her because she was a girl.[212], Khan had urged White to go for an abortion [212] Reason The period of six year is not determined , it is suspectedly six years, also it is quoted by story of The News , so i want to add the pretext in the paragraph.

• Finally you added this line,Tyrian looked extraordinarily like Khan , which is taken from a book , based on thrilling stories , its author is known for Tabloid Journalism , he was sacked for giving fake news , posting fake pictures of Iraq war, and he has not earned very good repute. Read this article of the Guardian for his further details. Further more Tyrain is already mentioned in all her details , what is a need for adding this line ?

I am not defending any party nor i represent one, the only point is that it is one of the top visited page, this is biography of one of the top leaders, if you including some information, please include authentic sources, and not Masla , Gossip magazines and material . Moreover, no one is deleting his story with Sita White or Tyrain etc. , nor i am defending it, the only point is finality in the discussion. Please don't wrap these story in such strong way that they sounds like facts. Hope your will consider my POV, and doesn't oppose the entire discussion.

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions rejected Reason: The book does not quote the conversation between Jemima and her father. India Today is an additional source for backup, furthermore India Today is a reliable source as well, when there are multiple reliable sources describing those relationships then we do not use the attribution suggested by you. These relationships are discussed in other sources which are not in the article currently. Are we going to say, according to , source 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 etc? No, we will not! The word "documented" is as per the source and we have two reliable sources confirming that they are documented. So, I do not see a reason changing sourced wording to POV wording suggested by you. Also, about Sita White relationship, it is not only mentioned in The News source but also in two books which are there to support that content and The News is a reliable source as well so when we source the content to a reliable source, we do not attribute it to the source. Piers Morgan was not sacked for this story so this story still keeps its authenticity plus this is not only source which claims resemblance among them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown:

• I am not contesting his affairs , i am just saying that word documented stands for some thing is in black and white and is proven fact. Instead saying , according to press, or according to news sources , means that the information is obtained from news papers and magazines. You are not going to say according to 1,2,3,4,5, you are going to say , according to published stories. Any ways we can go with word documented , i take your POV in this regard .
• No one is contesting Sita White relationship bro, you have always misunderstood, i just said that the paragraph starts with the story straight away , the relation years are defined like hardcore fact, we must write it like according to a certain story it stands like this.

Suggested: According to story published in the media, they suspectedly remained in the relationship for about six years having met in 1987-88.[212] According to Sita White, Khan agreed for a child in the 1991 meeting. Tyrian Jade was born on 15 June 1992 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center but Khan, according to White's allegation, refused to accept her because she was a girl, Khan had urged White to go for an abortion.

• Finally,

Tyrian looked extraordinarily like Khan, what is need of this sentence? The existing text in the article mentions Site white, courts verdict and claim on the child, why you are stressing it that far? The book's author is known for Tabloid Journalism, please check his record, he has long history of fake pictures, fake stories and unaunthetic stories.

I agreed to your POV in first case, please agree on the rest.

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

With due respect the date of birth of imran khan is wrong.His birthday was on 25th november 1952.I request to all the respected registered editors to change his birthday to 25 november 1952.

<refhttps://tribune.com.pk/story/471019/twitter-alert-happy-birthday-imran-khan/></ref> Ak2019456 (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Per WP:EDITREQ#General considerations, this is neither uncontroversial maintenance (it's gone back and forth a few times and been discussed repeatedly here) nor already supported by consensus. Please seek consensus before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Quoting Facts out of Reham Khan Book

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: You removed content sourced to three separate sources. Can you explain why allegations by his former wife cannot be part of his bio? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown:

All three sources points to same person Reham Khan, and her book . His ex-wife has grudge against him, that is known on media and by all. The allegations in the book are contested in court of law. The book has no page written in interest or on the pattern of neutrality, it says that Imran Khan is Gay, he is a drug abuse, he misuse women across his party, all women in Pakistani politics are slut, all female media persons are misused, in order to enter politics you have to compromise your self and so on? The book is strong condemned in the media , how come you are adding that Imran Khan has that many illegal children , while the allegation stands no grounds at all? Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown:

Clearly your editing pattern are suggesting that you are targeting bio of Imran khan in terms of his relationship, his children and trying to incorporate news from Tabloid journalism. Perviously you used Piers Morgan's text , which is notorious for his unfactual and gossip work. Now you are using Reham Khan book to quote different facts. Reham Khan book is known for her character assassination of Imran Khan , it is full of allegations, unfactual information and character assignation of Imran Khan. Entire Pakistani media has strongly condemned the book and its content and it taken up by social activist Hamza Ali Abbasi. Please don't add content from this book, it is unacceptable to slander and do character assignation on any bio. If you keep on quoting like this , this page will become full of information like this. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown:

The book is one of the top controversial books around, the legal notice are served by businessman Zulfikar Bukhari, authors first husband Ijaz Rehman, renowned crickter, Wasim Akram , PTI International Media Coordinator Anila Khawaja. The book contains “a litany of malicious, false, incorrect, highly misleading, callous, wanton, tortious, prejudicial, damaging, libellous, and defamatory imputations”. The civil court in Multan already issued stay order on the book. First wife of Imran Khan Jamima Khan also issued defamation notice against the writer. Famous social activist Hamza Ali Abbasi has openly contested the book, as it was launched just before elections 2018 by political opponents. The sources quoted by Shariff , all three of them refers to same book and are same news source? Howcome, you include unaunthentic information in BLP of a leader from such controversial sources? Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

References

@Saqib: what do you think? Should the allegations put forward by Rehan Khan be removed or should they remain? Since in Pakistan, the book has received several legal notices for unethical allegations against Imran khan as well as Wasim Akram. Knightrises10 (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: wouldn't it be better to move this content to controversies, because Reham Khan had not proved her allegations. Knightrises10 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Knightrises10: While I've to agree with Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry that Reham Khan's autobiography is a patently biased book, but WP:BIASEDSOURCES says Wikipedia articles are required to present a NPOV. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. The three sources cited in this para are reliable secondary sources pointing to Reham Khan's biased autobiography. Guess we can debate about it and I would like to invite Mar4d in the discussion. --Saqib (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• The text I added starts with "According to his former wife, Reham Khan...", this is perfectly attributed to Reham and does not state it as a fact, this part should be added where it was added for continuity purposes because article is discussing Tyrian and it continues on saying that according to this lady, the man told him that she is not the only one. Furthermore, I do not agree that it is biased source only because it is challenged by some folks in the court. Anyone negatively reflected is going to challenge. Also, do you have proof that Imran Khan himself challenged the book. Furthermore, I am not in favor of canvassing editors like this as I already know POVs of some of the long established editors and they are pro-Pakistani and pro-Imran. I am ok if you want to invite some non-Pakistani neutral projects to this discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Perhaps it was a blunder on my part but my ping was not meant to canvass or persuade anyone, but rather to draw attention. --Saqib (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• How can you say that the source is not biased? Even Reham didn't prove those allegations, she just stated it. I never asked you to remove controversies regarding Sita and Tyrian, because they have been proved in courts, regardless of Khan denying it. But what Reham says is totally unsourced and false claim that was aimed to defame Khan just before he elections. Knightrises10 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• My secondary proposal is to add this part where relationship with Reham is discussed, after the mention of divorce, the article can continue on to say that she wrote a book in which she alleged this, this and this about Khan. Allegations from a former wife are more than controversy and should be mentioned where the relationship is discussed especially when we have secondary sources to back that up. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Knightrises10: I never mentioned them as facts, they are properly attributed to Reham. That source being biased is your personal opinion, it does not become biased just because people who are negatively reflected term it as biased. It's quite possible that every thing she said was true. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Saqib: I am sorry, I did not mean that it was your intention to canvass. I just wanted to say that we should not invite editors about whom we know that they have considered opinion about the topic. We should try to invite neutral editors if we want to do something like that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reham Khan book

@Saqib: I was thinking to create a separate page on Reham Khan's book and move all these allegations there. After all, they all are allegations and should belong to Reham Khan (book) rather his biography. What are your thoughts? Störm (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also agree that they should be removed from here and should be moved to the page related to that book. I hope @SheriffIsInTown: would also like to have a say Knightrises10 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Störm: The book visibly pass the notability test so go ahead. Whether the information should be removed from here is calls for another discussion. --Saqib (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do not mind if the page on book is created and that too mentions some of the content attributed to the book but the content about Imran Khan belongs in Khan's article and we are not going to censor it just because his party and his supporters does not like it or it discusses sex on which discussion in Pakistan is considered taboo or since the subject is popular and going to be prime minister so he gets favorable treatment and we remove everything negative against him or it puts Pakistan in a negative light. All these reasons are no valid reasons to exclude something from a Wikipedia article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, Knightrises10 Anyone interested in expansion of this book Reham Khan (memoir). Störm (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown, Knightrises10, Saqib, and Störm: Add about and from Kristiane Backer book as well.

• @Störm: I have added some content. Thanks Knightrises10 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Knightrises10 Thank you for your effort. Störm (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

18 August

Hi Have you got a source who said that Imran Khan will sworn in in 18 August? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014 Source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, I hope these are enough. Nauriya, Let's talk - 17:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated Profile Picture

Please updated the profile photo of this page Hasnainrais (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please change the picture Mrhaider16 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Cricket career

Surely this can be expanded. Its tiny right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Imran Khan

the current and 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedhaaris97 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC) 

Education of Imran Khan Niazi

Education of Imran Khan Niazi, it mentions name of the college instead of degree. Can you please post his highest degree, which according to ECP filing is Bachelors. Adl786 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PM Imran Khan inspect guard of honor.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

22nd?

How can he be 22nd PM when Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was 18th as per discussion here. --Saqib (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusing sources, They are counting the Terms of PMs as per the ruling government. He is the 19th Prime Minister in number and 22nd in accordance to government's tenure. Its up to us to decide which one to use, ARY uses 19th here [1] Jibran1998 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We need to go with what most sources say. If they count tenure separately then we need to count them as well! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A person who was elected twice doesn't count as a new person in premiership, rather his/her ministry is accounted as I,II,III etc. That's the official way of counting PMs. However, most sources are claiming him as 22nd PM, but it should be 19th according to table and definition. UK doesn't name them with numbers but Canadian and Indian follow the same format and not counting the one who ruled twice. My vote goes for 19th one, as this is official, also we can state the difference in note. Nauriya, Let's talk - 17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between consecutive more than one tenures for example in case of Obama, that would not count separately and tenures with other PM's in between in case of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. The latter is debateable whether should be counted separately or not. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see Canadians have an example for the latter as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd served twice as Australian Prime Minister. --Saqib (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

According to what I've seen on television reports, he's been mentioned as the 22nd rather than 19th PM. We'll need to look at this. Mar4d (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say lets not count those PM's who were elected twice of thrice but we should count acting PM. List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan missing some acting PM such as Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi. --Saqib (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We'll need to rely on sources to ensure there's no WP:OR. I'm not in a position to confirm whether caretakers are included in the count. If they are, then that makes the number increase. Mar4d (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d, Störm, and SheriffIsInTown: PM official website and at-least one Pakistani daily referring Nasir-ul-Mulk as 29th PM which makes Imran Khan 30th..Also you need to see this table List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Pakistan#Prime_Ministers. --Saqib (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Dawn, The News, UAE's The National, and Arab News referring to him as 21st PM. While Geo News, Dunya News, The News, The Nation refer to him as 20th PM. --Saqib (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know but some sources are trying to emphasize on his struggle of 22 years with 22nd Prime Minister. Many of these sources are tabloid type and aren't solely reliable. We've to wait and see what international sources quote. Störm (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: @Störm: Dawn mentions him as the 22nd Prime Minister in its headline. Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That being said, I can see some other news sources using 19th. The confusion is still there. Mar4d (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d Here is another thing, they are contradicting themselves, [2] 19th, [3] headline is 22nd. Störm (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post writes 19th [4]. Störm (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the number for now. Let's sort out this first. --Saqib (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think when an officeholder had two or three non consecutive term, he should have two or three numerotation. So if in the future Khan or another is reelected for 5 new years, we should also give him a new numerotation because of the caretaker. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I have been always in favor of including the caretakers and actings in the numeration as no matter what constitutionally they are prime ministers. I have always thought that one day I will do some research and find out how sources list them but more pressing editing has been taking priority. Since the sources are all over the place then I think we can continue with current numeration and list him as 19th or you can take my personal opinion and list him as the 26th including all the caretakers and actings but not including multiple terms or list him as 30th counting multiple terms as well. Also, I think we should keep him at 19th during the discussion, there is no need to remove that since we already have Abbasi listed as 18th. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Pakistani mainstream media usually don't include caretaker PM's in the lists of elected PM's and therefore we see why some referring Khan as 19th or 22nd PM. But I suggest we should take neutral approach here and include caretakers in the count but shouldn't count multiple premierships. Having said that, I think I would go with 26th. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: et.al, Is there any other country in the world which ever had an acting or caretaker head of state or government or we are unique in this wide expanding universe? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Bangladesh have this caretaker government system. --Saqib (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: And they are not counting the caretakers/actings as well so it looks like 19th is the correct number supported by both the sources and the precedence on Wikipedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. So in this case, my second preference would be off-course 19th. --Saqib (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Geo, Dawn have named him as the 22nd Prime Minister. The official facebook page of pti has also congratulated him as the 22nd Prime Ministet.Knightrises10 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We need to count tenures seperately. Nawaz became PM 3 times and all three were counted seperately in the parliament. Caretaker PMs are not elected and thus, are never counted in the list. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Knightrises10: You see there is already a precedent on Wikipedia for not counting multiple terms. We have examples from Canada, India and Australia already mentioned above so once we have a precedent and sources as well, that should prevail over something which is just supported by sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said earlier, caretakers are not counted as PMs as they are not elected by either popular or by electoral collage votes. And no constitution or legal legislation of Pakistan states the order of PMs or nor such there is any documentation. So in that case we must go over what it is already there in other wikipedian articles, and for sure persons elected twice even if there terms are not periodic can not be given separate counts, but there ministries should. So media reporting 22nd is just a term that is everyone using, we should mention 19th and then in notes and references we can explain the reason why is that.

Also now the first paragraph should be like this:

Imran Khan is a 19th and current Prime Minister of Pakistan. Before entering to politics he was a professional cricketer and philanthropist.

Rest of the information is already in the fourth paragraph, which later would be trimmed to give space for his ministership tenure. Nauriya, Let's talk - 02:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

• @Saqib: Do you have the link to the Prime Minister's official website you mentioned above? I think that would be the most credible source, given the multiple contradictions amongst news sources. Mar4d (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: It appears the website is down for maintenance. But for now, you can see this. --Saqib (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears the Prime Minister's Office includes caretakers in its count. I think we might have to go with this, instead of other news sources which do not appear to agree upon a unanimous number. Perhaps the caretakers should be merged onto the main list in List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan, but their numbers can be enclosed in brackets to indicate they were interim PMs? Mar4d (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I see Dawn has mentioned 22nd again. Prime Minister Imran Khan: PTI chairman sworn in as 22nd premier of Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Yesterday I merged the list of caretakers PM's with the elected ones, but we've got a abusive account which reverted the changes. --Saqib (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It probably doesn't much matter whether you use 19th or 22nd as long as you have a footnote explaining that he's 19th by one counting method and 22nd by another (and perhaps 26th by another). Ideally you should use the same system as in the list of PMs, and also have the explanatory footnote there too. Ideally your footnote should also show at least one source for 19th, and at least one for 22nd (and one for 26th if there is one). If you're not sure whether 19th or 22nd is best, in theory you should go by the preponderance of reliable sources, though that can sometimes be hard to establish. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
For an example of a footnote that cites sources, see for example footnote [nb 8] here. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It turns out the preponderance of reliable sources is clearly for 22nd, and some other editor had already changed 19th back to 22nd before I added the footnote I suggested above. I'll probably now also add it to the List of PMs.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus: Thanks, excellent work with the footnote! Mar4d (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Saqib: So, with 22nd, we are counting multiple terms but we are not counting caretakers and actings, that means you should not merge the lists! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I hope we have consensus now? Good work @Tlhslobus: --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Tlhslobus: You are aware that List of Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, List of Prime Ministers of India, List of Prime Ministers of Canada, and List of Prime Ministers of Australia all do not count multiple terms separately. There is a Wikipedia wide consensus and precedent already not to count them separately, the problem with Pakistani media houses is their independent thinking capability, everything propagates like a wildfire, they act like automatic robots, one says 22nd, every one follows and repeats, if one says 19th, every one repeat that. I think we should go with already established precedent on Wikipedia. In this case someone came up with an idea that 22nd prime minister matches with 22 years of Khan's political struggle so they used that number and everyone followed! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said originally, I suspect it doesn't much matter in practice to our readers (who are the people who should really count) which we go for as long as we have a footnote telling them where 19th and 22nd comes from. However, given that we have to go for one or the other in practice, WP:VERIFY seems reasonably clear when it says "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." (bold by me). "Due weight" then wikilinks to the following text: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (Footnote 3:The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.)" As such, while I wouldn't have much of a problem myself with going for 19th (as long as our readers were also told about 22nd), I expect it would in practice risk leading to an endless edit war as other editors understandably (and correctly) pointed out that 19th violated WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. In this respect the numbering conventions used by the preponderance of reliable sources for other countries is irrelevant (and incidentally there are plenty that use the current Pakistani convention - for instance Vladimir Putin is currently described as 2nd and 4th President of Russia, and the convention has existed in America since Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th US President). But what matters here is the numbering convention used by the preponderance of reliable sources about Pakistan's PM.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

First 100 days of Imran Khan's premiership

SheriffIsInTown, Mar4d for First 100 days of Imran Khan's premiership and Premiership of Imran Khan we should start these articles, as they have clear agenda for his 100 days, plus first 100 days accounts everything he will do. Also, for the latter page his whole tenure of ministry can be included. Nauriya, Let's talk - 21:04 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nauriya: I already created Prime Ministership of Imran Khan, I do not think a separate article is needed on first 100 days. It can be decided if there is significant amount of content for first 100 days but I assumed that his complete tenure will have plenty of content so I created the article just relying on his first speech for now offcourse. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: then it should be Premiership of Imran Khan not Prime Ministership, move that page please. Also First 100 days article are created normally, see for American Presidents and in case of PMs, normally there are two articles, First article that covers there over all premiership which is just like you created, and then their ministries discussing there term separately e.g: First Ministry, Second Ministry etc. (See UK PM: Premiership of Theresa May, First May ministry and Second May ministry) Nauriya, Let's talk - 01:25 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nauriya: I created First 100 days of Imran Khan's premiership. I initially decided to create Prime Ministership of Imran Khan because I thought no body calls Pakistani prime minister, premier so prime minister being more common, I went with that. As for first and second ministry, we have Khan ministry, first and second are created only when a leader has more than one term. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

Mr.Imran Khan is the 22nd prime minister of Pakistan Danistra18 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done - this change appears to have already been completed. - Dmezh (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

he is the 22nd prime minister 49.191.21.66 (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A big mistake , it should be 22nd Prime minister of Pakistan Dr.asifalikhan (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - this change appears to have already been completed. - Dmezh (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Also, I want to highlight the first paragraph focused only on the current position, as mostly it is in the politician articles. The example is follow:

Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi HI PP (Urdu: عمران احمد خان نیازی; born 5 October 1952) is a Pakistani politician serving as the 22nd and current Prime Minister of Pakistan since 2018. Before entering politics, he was a cricketer and philanthropist.

the rest of the information is already incorporated in the fourth paragraph. Please have a consensus on that. No need to cluttered the first paragraph with other details, see Donald Trump, Theresa May, Narendra Modi, of course we can add one more line but not more than that, as it undermines the importance of his main role. Nauriya, Let's talk - 00:49 20 August 2018 (UTC) (Why it should be like that? please see the discussion why we should keep this simple).

I agree with this маsтегрнатаLк 11:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

AgreedTayyabarshad786 (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Current lead is good, it does not have to be in line with other articles! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Children

Why you add name tyran as his daughter? Tayyabarshad786 (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Because she is his daughter. Paternity test and court in UK confirmed that she is his daughter in 1996. Although he never spoke of her in Pakistani media, which he does the same for his boys as well, bu Jamaima and Sita (Tyrian Mother) were friends and he accepted Tiryan as her guardian. Though he never officially said he was his father but this is true. So this needs to be included as this is not rumour or tabloid. Nauriya (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Religion

What religion Imran Khan follows? Is he Deobandi, Beralvi, .... Who is his spiritual leader to take advise from? Does he read religious books? Adl786 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

He is a barelvi and his wife Bishra Bibi is his spiritual leader. Tayyabarshad786 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

First this is not a religion, it is sect and second unless it is important or there is some information attached to it that needs to be addressed then we can have consensus only after if it is verifiable. Third this is not a forum for asking questions that doesnt specify why you asked that question. He is Muslim and that is something relatable to this article nothibg else. Nauriya (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So the article should specify that religion is Muslim! Adl786 (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of children

Why names of children removed? This makes page ambiguous Adl786 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adl786: I left the message to the editor who removed them, I will wait for his reply before re-adding them! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Why Tyran, her daughter name removed from side bar! Is it appropriate for a person to be allowed removal of an authentic court order! Adl786 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Forced a Conversion reference:

This statement needs correction “Khan while speaking on the pronouncement of the Pakistani Taliban against Ismailis and the Kalash people, said that the forced conversion is un-Islamic.[”

Ismailis are considered Muslims under the constitution of Pakistan! What forced conversion you are talking about? Most talibans & IS consider any Muslim not following their brand of Islam as Kafir, for which everyone should condemn them. Adl786 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

SherrifisinTown, sir this sentence & Imran Khan statement gives a false impression that Ismailis are non Muslims. This is very dangerous for that community. I had added couple of sentences with a reference to Wiki on Ismailis to correct that impression. My explanation might have been clumsy, but it is necessary for safety of Ismailis. Please use appropriate explanation to correct that false impression, Ismailis need any sort of conversion, forced or otherwise. Thankyou. “Khan while speaking on the pronouncement of the Pakistani Taliban against Ismailis and the Kalash people, said that the forced conversion is un-Islamic.” Adl786 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sentence being referred is “ Khan while speaking on the pronouncement of the Pakistani Taliban against Ismailis and the Kalash people, said that the forced conversion is un-Islamic.[“ Adl786 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we cannot diverge too much from the source. The problem is Taliban considered Ismailis non-Muslims and wanted to convert them to their brand of Islam so Khan is right by saying "forced conversion is un-Islamic" and most importantly that is how Dawn put it. It is not our doing, the responsibility falls on the source for not properly clarifying as to why Taliban announced armed struggle against Ismailis! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason I raised is because it is very sensitive area as many scores of Ismailis, just because they are considered kafir, have been killed in Pakistan and educational institutions built by their spiritual leader have been destroyed. It is matter of life & death. At least a clarifying statement about them that they are considered Muslims even under Pakistani constitution should be included with either hyperlink or reference to wiki on Ismailis. It is not diverging from source, but clarifying. All sentences around it are wrt conversion. Conversion doesn’t apply with Ismailis at all. Adl786 (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have clarified enough and I do not think English speaking Pakistanis are behind killing Ismailis or destroying their schools. Folks who can read English, they can read the same in Dawn as we are describing what is described in the source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

https://tribune.com.pk/story/889452/arrested-safoora-attack-mastermind-confesses-to-sabeen-mahmuds-murder/

Sir, you are wrong that killers are not English speaking Pakistanis. Please read about those who were convicted of the killing of Ismailis in Karachi, in the reference above. They were highly educated, BBA, Masters, BE, etc. Wiki is taken more seriously than a newspaper! At least make Ismailis in your description, as hypertext link that jumps to Wiki on Ismailis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adl786 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Iranian

please change ((Iranian)) to ((Iran))ian

Done, thanks for pointing that out. The request you made makes it appear that you are familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines; if you were to create an account you would be able to make edits to semi-protected pages yourself. :) ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2018

103.245.195.72 (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Honorific prefix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The head of state (President and Prime Minister) of Pakistan are called as Their Excellency. @SheriffIsInTown has been deleting the honorific prefix again and again. It should be added to the infobox.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellency#Pakistan

Zaydbinumar (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zaydbinumar: You are being disruptive while adding "His Excellency" again and again as honoric prefix for Khan without discussing and getting consensus. As I know him, I do not think even Khan himself cares if he is addressed as "His Excellency" or not. The source you are giving is an on-wiki source which cannot be used and even that text about Pakistan in Excellency is unsourced. Furthermore, pages for most world leaders do not have honoric prefix populated, the three examples you are giving are minority examples, two of them being Pakistanis Mamnoon Hussain and Asif Zardari, both of them having no value in real life but listed as Excellency(s) on Wikipedia. Someone like you must have done that as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown:

You're just talking nonsense. Who the hell cares about what Imran Khan cares about or not? Heads of states are called Their Excellencies around the world. It's a very idiotic logic that it creates discrimination in the society. And if you have some brains please go check Justin Trudeau as well. Ex Prime Ministers such as Nawaz Sharif were also called Their Excellencies. And pls stop giving your own views here they're nonsense as well. Oh and yes aren't you the one whose some envy with all my pages? Awwwww Zaydbinumar (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zaydbinumar: Please see WP:PA, if you used this type of language one more time, the next stop is WP:AN. As for the honoric prefix, please see WP:HONORIFIC, the policy is clear on it. Please let me know what pages are yours against which I have an envy!

Oh yes, there is lot more you can do on Wikipedia than waking up every morning and adding honoric prefix to Imran Khan! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: so awwww this time my language isn't acceptable? Have you seen what you've said before? I'll do what I can do on Wikipedia rather imposing my own useless thought on any page I wish to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaydbinumar (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC says: They are not usually used in running text, though some may be appropriate in the lead sentence of a biographical article, as detailed below, or in a section about the person's titles and styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaydbinumar (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But, this is not appropriate because a) it lacks a source, b) you need to read the policy in detail, it states In general, honorific prefixes – styles and honorifics in front of a name – in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: styles and honorifics derived from a title, position or activity, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable;

If, this was allowed, we should have "Her Majesty" at Elizabeth II, the articles you are referring might have missed thorough scrutiny and are in minority on Wikipedia plus it does not add any encyclopedic value for the reader and is against WP:NPOV.

Your restoration of disputed entry without conclusion of discussion was inappropriate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. Per WP:HONORIFIC, I would agree that the honorific doesn't belong in the infobox. However,from the same policy: "In general, honorific prefixes – styles and honorifics in front of a name – in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article." If you wanted to include a properly sourced statement to the effect of "as head of state, Khan's honorific title is "His Excellency".", I would say that that is fine. Also, please review WP:EQ and WP:PA; name-calling and immaturity is never acceptable behavior. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Honorific First off, the honorific is not sourced. It's only used in addressing and rarely used in a practically manner therefore I think it does not help readers. While in office, Prime Ministers are addressed as "Mr. Prime Minister" and this don't continue that when they leave office. I also believe we have a consensus to not use honorifics for the US Presidents. --Saqib (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've removed the honorific from the infobox. WP:HONORIFIC is straightforward, so continuing to re-add it to the infobox in spite of the simple rule we have on this is disruptive. End of discussion. Do not re-add it, or you will be blocked. Swarm ♠ 06:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement about offer of possibility of premiership

SherrinIsInTown, Sir, My representation is not only more accurate, has actual quote but is also direct source compared to the archived info that you decided to keep in the description. That reference is secondary to the Express Tribune quote, which I included.

This is actual quote which talks about “could also offer” , while your description implies that the offer was actually made. Mr. Wattoo was not in position to offer PM position, that only comes from PPP CEC, & Chairman/Co Chairman. Mr. Wattoo was removed after elections in 2013.

“The PPP could also offer Imran Khan the office of prime minister in the coalition government,” Mian Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo, the then president of PPP’s central Punjab chapter, told The Express Tribune in a candid interview on Sunday in Okara.

On 30 April 2013, Manzoor Wattoo president of Pakistan Peoples Party (Punjab) offered Khan the office of prime minister in the possible coalition government which would include the PPP and Khan's PTI, in a move to prevent Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) to make the government, but the offer was rejected.[123]

Adl786 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If it is not significant then it needs to be completely removed, do you have a source which says that Wattoo was removed from PPP after election 2013? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that actual offer was ever made and was rejected by Imran Khan. My representation is substantiated by quoted evidence and provides value. I suggest you review your decision! Adl786 (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I can provide you info about Watto being no longer head of Punjab of PPP. As you might even know, Mrs. Imran belongs to Watto clan. Mr. Wattoo children ran as part of PTI in 2028 and Mr. Watto as independent. But for me if you want to remove complete mention of offer of PM from Wiki, I wouldn’t ha e issue. The issue is about incorrect info. Adl786 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

In WEALTH > ASSETS >

Change: "Other assets include furniture of ₨0.6 million (US$5,700) and four goats of ₨0.2 million (US$1,900). However he has no vehicle registered in his name.[194]" To "Other assets include furniture and livestock of ₨0.6 million (US$5,700). However he has no vehicle registered in his name.[194]"

Reason: The article linked in the citation of this particular section(194) says: "Khan has been an investor in various schemes and is the owner of furniture costing owns furniture worth Rs. 0.6 million and livestock."

Link to article in citation: https://www.samaa.tv/news/2017/06/imran-khans-net-worth-over-a-billion-yet-no-vehicle-in-his-name/ Ameerhamza.rz (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 14:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

Imran Khan did not write "Love is Evergreen". That is a different Imran Khan. 79.68.122.115 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)