Talk:Imran Khan

This is because of an edit war between two editors, both of whom have been around long enough to know better. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm grateful to editors who are using these two days productively. The community thanks you for boldly disagreeing on the talk page. BusterD (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Since the edit warring on a tagged CTOP/BLP resumed after the protection expired, I've blocked both users from editing anywhere on Wikipedia for 31 hours. This was a violation of an Arbcom remedy, so use the time to calm the heck down. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@WikiEnthusiast1001 Khan's video under the section Imran Khan#Arrest and case proceedings is a slap in the face of WP:NPOV. It should be removed without further discussion, as WP:NPOV clearly states that all content must be based on reliable sources, and no consensus can override WP:NPOV. If you really think its inclusion does not violate NPOV, then you should be the one seeking consensus for its inclusion. If we create a transcript of this video, the content comes out to be equivalent in length to a large section. For content on Wikipedia, we prefer secondary reliable sources. This video is a primary statement by Khan published by his political party. YouTube is filled with Khan's videos, so why this particular one? We do not know. If anyone can add any video to an article, then what is stopping another editor from adding a different one? We do not know.

For the May 9 riots, there are video statements available from the authorities. Should we add one of those next to Khan's to provide balance? There is also the issue of mistranslation and misinterpretation. For example, he uses a word in Urdu with one meaning, but the translator renders it as a completely different word. At times, the translator also tries to put words into Khan's mouth by inserting words in brackets that Khan did not actually say, on the basis that the translator believes Khan meant them. The video ends with the official Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf logo. The question is: is Wikipedia a mouthpiece for political parties and their leaders? Why should we include a video produced by a political party featuring its leader? Following is my translation of that video. You can see how different it is from the translation used in the video.

What was the investigation? That a major conspiracy took place on May 9th. They were asking me if I was a part of that conspiracy. There is a Supreme Court verdict that Imran Khan was picked up illegally and unconstitutionally, was kidnapped from within the High Court. This was my plot to get picked up like this? Before I got out in the morning when I had a hunch that they will arrest me, even though there was no case against me. I was on bail in all of them. When I found out, i initially told them to show me the warrant and arrest me. If someone has a warrant, bring the warrant straight to me, my lawyers, my legal will be there, I am willing myself to go to jail. Nobody should do this type of drama. So, what was the need to beat up with sticks, break up things, breaking windows, they beat up that poor staff of the registry office, beat up the lawyers, beat up my poor guards, was I a terrorist? Just to show the visuals to the World, the way they went, the way they arrested me. They say to me, why your people went there, why they went to the cantonment, why they went to the certain place? You had it prepared beforehand, I asked them when I am being picked up by commando action there, where will people go to protest? I figured from what he was saying that we have no permission to peaceful protest in front of GHQ or cantonment. Tell me, where is this written in the constitution? It is written in the constitution that it is your right, every Pakistani's right that when injustice is done, you can peacefully protest against injustice. And injustice was done, Supreme Court said in its verdict that Imran Khan was picked up illegally and unconstitutionally. These Tehreek-e-Insaf people were they sheeps and goats that they should have sit quietly? What wrong they did that they went out for peaceful protest? Then after that, they were prepared beforehand that whatever the reaction would be, they were sitting prepared beforehand that they will burn this building. And the IG Punjab who is running uncontrolled, is nobody going to ask him that it is taking people two hours to reach there to protest, is no one going to ask him where was your police? They were teargasing everywhere, they were standing everywhere, why they did not go there? Where is that CCTV camera? Why its footage is not in front of everyone? Why there was no independent inquiry? It was a conspiracy and In Sha Allah, this conspiracy will come in front of everyone. Why they don’t ask this question? That those people, the 25 people who were shot with bullets, those people, youngsters whose legs got lost, legs of three people were cut, bedridden, got shot in waist, got paralyzed, were they not Pakistanis? Don’t they have any rights? No one is talking about them, they burned the Corp Commander House, we all, we condemn it. The Chief Justice has written in his judgement that when Imran Khan was first time, first time I found out what happened, I condemned right at that time. And I said, in 27 years, I have always told my party to stay within our law. How many people were where houses were burnt, building were burnt, how many might be, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 1,000 might be? Then, how 10,000 people were thrown in? And then, give them an opportunity so they can tell what was their side, yes, whoever reached there in geo-fencing was thrown in jail. Said, judge listens to both sides before giving verdicts, does not give one-sided verdicts. One judge, jury, executioner, sir you decide, this they have done, apprehend and start beating them, apprehend and create military courts, so nothing comes out, punish whoever. Instead, they were talking like, now protesting is for you like committing treason with the state. Then end the democracy, say Martial Law is imposed, say whatever they will decide, they will do, but in democracy, it is our right that when injustice is done with us and Supreme Court has confirmed, after that peaceful protest is our right. And then again i say that, whoever burned the Corp Commander House or whatever buildings they burned, action should be taken on all of them. I say it before anything else, and whatever information we have, we will help you as well to take action on them because we did not do it. Whatever these people are doing, I want to give them only one message, think about this country, do not destroy it, what you are going to do, this largest party, with whom majority public is standing, and majority public meaning with whom 70, 80 percent public is standing, attempting to finish this, finishing Imran Khan, country's democracy, country’s independence, country's institutions, country’s constitution, you keep finishing everything. With that nations do not survive, especially morality that they are finishing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have said this a number of times. The video has been in the article since 7 March 2025. Removing it was a bold move, but was reverted. We should now conduct a discussion about it. Your argument is that it violates NPOV. Why do you think that? Regarding the rhetorical question about adding other videos for "balance", this is Imran's bio, not "he authorities". However, you (or anyone else) can add other videos if you think they are relevant to Imran's bio. Burrobert (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Burrobert A core policy violation such as this can be removed at any time without discussion, no matter how long it has been in the article and no matter how many times you say that it has been in the article. WP:BRD, an essay, does not apply when the core policy WP:NPOV states otherwise. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. When a core policy violation such as this is removed, you can contest it and gain consensus to get it restored, but you cannot apply WP:BRD to it. It can stay off the article, and if you are so confident that it is not a violation, then there should not be a problem for you to get it restored with consensus. Also, where does it say that you can only include a video of the subject? If the subject is making contentious claims in a video about an event, then videos from others making contentious claims about the subject could also be included if we accept your statement. However, there is no competition here to violate Wikipedia policies; two wrongs do not make a right. I am against including any videos containing contentious claims, whether they are of the subject or someone else making claims about the subject. You asked why it is a violation of NPOV, so here is the opening paragraph of that policy for you. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view(NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Do you think the subject, Imran Khan, is a reliable source, or that his party, which produced and subtitled the video, is a reliable source? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you consider these policies when you propagated narratives of the Pakistani state by accusing Ryan Grim of "colluding" with the PTI? Pretty hypocritical... WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I considered them, and we are not discussing Ryan Grim here. When it is relevant to discuss Ryan Grim, I will provide an answer on that, and I am pretty sure I already provided you with an answer when you brought the matter up elsewhere. Focus on the content being discussed here, talk about the video, and answer my question: why do you think it is not a violation of WP:NPOV? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

If you think the video infringes the policy at NPOV, raise it at the appropriate noticeboard to get the views of other editors. Two editors here think it is appropriate. Burrobert (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Burrobert Two editors here think it is appropriate. Do you think Wikipedia runs on WP:VOTE? Did you or the other editor explain whether and why you think Imran Khan or his party are reliable sources? I gave you policy-based reasoning; consensus is always policy-based. You cannot just say it is appropriate and it becomes appropriate. I invested my time and gave you excerpts from the policy and explained to you in detail why I think it is a violation of a core policy. We are not going to WP:FORUMSHOP for no reason, so my question again: do you think Imran Khan and PTI are reliable sources? Where does WP:NPOV say that you can add content from unreliable sources? Where does WP:PRIMARY say that you can use primary sources for contentious claims? Where does any policy say that you must use a subject's video even though it is subtitled inaccurately? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for Imran's views. We are not using it to state facts in Wikivoice. It is appropriate because it is Imran's bio. I suggested asking at the appropriate noticeboard because it would provide a wider range of views. Currently this talk page is only frequented by three editors. Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for Imran's views. No, it is not. It fails WP:SELFSOURCE on the top two conditions, it is unduly self-serving, and it involves claims regarding third parties. We only go to forums when there is a policy-based dispute, not merely a vote-based dispute. In a vote-based dispute, the policy-based argument wins. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

And who decides whether a policy based argument has been provided? How is it unduly self-serving? Which third parties are mentioned in the video? Burrobert (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Burrobert You need to stop your WP:IDHT. Read the erroneous video subtitle: it mentions the military, IG Punjab, and Chief Justice. Or read my version of the transcript up there. It should be clear to you that third parties are mentioned. And do you really think all these contentious claims he is making are not self-serving? How is it not a violation of WP:NPOV to have the video based just on his views about an incident in which he makes claims about third parties, but there is no presentation of the views of those third parties? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Those are positions, not names. The video provides his explanation of events. That is fine in his bio. However, you can seek other opinions. Burrobert (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, you can disagree all you want. I have provided you with excerpts from WP:NPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE, but you keep displaying WP:IDHT. Where does WP:SELFSOURCE say that people, organisations, and entities must be mentioned by name for it to be a violation? IG Punjab and Chief Justice come under the people category; there were people serving in those positions, and those are still living people, so it comes under WP:BLPVIO as well. Mention of the military falls under organisation and entity. And no, it is completely WP:UNDUE to include the subject's video like that in the article. You just say it is fine to include his video in his bio, but you did not address how it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include only his video with his perspective but nothing to challenge that perspective. It has been three years since this event took place, and there are plenty of independent third-party sources available to describe the May 9 events. So when independent third-party sources are available, why do we need to rely on a self-source? It even fails the first condition set by WP:PRIMARY, which requires sources to be published reputably. This one is not published by a reputable publisher but rather by his party. Then you did not address the issue of mistranslation and misinterpretation in subtitles. Primary sources can only be interpreted by reliable secondary sources; the subtitles include interpretations and were produced by his party, which is not a reliable secondary source. This video fails core policies on so many levels, so we are removing the video, as I have established with references and text from different policies. You could not provide a single policy argument except saying that it is fine to include. Even if we accept your argument that it is fine to include, it is still not necessary to include when so much has been published in reliable secondary sources over the last three years. But if you think it is fine and necessary to include, then you can gain consensus to get it included. The forums you are suggesting, you can take the matter there yourself and get a verdict that it is fine and necessary to include. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You are starting to repeat yourself and I would rather not repeat myself. Let's see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Since we are all hell-bent on fighting, how about we go back to Burrobert's version, where they restored the video, which would revert all WikiEnthusiast1001’s changes and restore the video as well? Then, from that version, we all try to gain consensus for our changes separately. This would mean it would be my responsibility to gain consensus for removing the video, and it would be WikiEnthusiast1001's responsibility to gain consensus for all their changes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

One of our editors has been looking into their crystal ball and using their mind-reading powers to determine the motives of some of the best cricketers the game has seen:

They are already foreseeing that something is in the works, all political analysts in Pakistan are saying the court will agree to a move to PIMS and he will allowed a longer stay, this is just a one-upping, credit grabbing attempt by these individuals, see, "we said, they did", everyone budged on our demand

Burrobert (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)