Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk · contribs)
• Burrobert (talk · contribs)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added a factual claim of Pakistan terminating bilateral investment treaties during Khan's government, which can be independently verified. The author, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies with extensive research experience in international trade, investment policy, and Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). While this does not make him automatically correct, it means his work should be assessed on its evidence rather than dismissed outright.

SheriffIsInTown objects to the source because they consider the author "non-notable."

My argument is that the relevant considerations are the author's subject-matter expertise, the publication's editorial standards, and whether the article's factual claims can be independently verified.

If any of Perez-Rocha's claims are inaccurate, they should be challenged with evidence, rather than rejecting the source solely because the author is non-notable.

The broader point is that the credibility of a source depends on its evidence + verifiability, not on the author being a household name.

Sheriff also reverted my edit regarding a military appointment by Khan as "inconsequential" despite the office being a four-star rank appointment and the highest ranking military official.

Another edit where Khan successfully defended himself in a libel case brought forward by Ian Botham and Allan Lamb, which was described as the most expensive libel actions in cricket history at the time, was reverted by Sheriff who said "the lawsuit was filed and in return was inconsequential".

I also made an edit noting that Javed Hashmi now says Khan "might have" compromised, in contrast to his earlier claim that Khan "conspired" with "disgruntled elements in the army," during his political career, but Sheriff reverted it as well, saying "they hold no encyclopedic value".

An edit in which I noted that Khan sold his apartment at Shahr-e-Dastoor was also reverted. Sheriff said: "the Dawn source quotes anonymous sources and aprtment selling, not an independent reporting and not sure if it is same apartment." However, the apartment described as being on Constitution Avenue is literally known as Shahr-e-Dastoor.

Sheriff also has an issue with including a quote attributed to Herald staffer Zaigham Khan, who reported on Khan being a part of a pressure group with Hamid Gul and Muhammad Ali Durrani, which never materialised. The quote stated that Khan "quickly became uncomfortable with the idea of being seen as a puppet in the hands of Gul". He reverted it with the explanation that "we do not need to include his o.."

My question is, why? Since the article identifies Zaigham Khan as the journalist who reported on the formation of the pressure group and the quote appears verbatim in the cited source, what is the rationale for excluding it?

He also suddenly has an issue with this video which had been in the article for over a year.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Imran Khan#Additions
Talk:Imran Khan/Archive 8#WikiEnthusiast1001's edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We seem to be at an impasse. I'm hoping other editors can suggest a way to move the discussion toward a resolution. I don't think it's productive to go back and forth with someone who refuses to budge, so I'd rather seek an uninvolved editors opinion.

A look at the recent edit history shows there are numerous points of dispute in the article. I will restrict myself to some of those raised by WikiEnthusiast1001.

• The video titled "Imran Khan provides his perspective on the May 9 riots in July 2023" is long-standing content. It has been in the article since 7 March 2025.[1] WP:STATUSQUO says "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion". The video contains no claims related to a BLP other than about Khan himself. No problem was raised regarding the video during the recent GAN review.[2] It should remain in the article.
• Assessment of Manuel Pérez-Rocha: Pérez-Rocha can be considered an expert in the area of trade and investment agreements so his opinion is worthy of inclusion. It is more coherent than the opinion attributed to Declan Walsh, which is contained in the article.
• The apartment on Constitution Avenue: in Imran's bio we call it a Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment event though the source says Constitution Avenue. Since there is disagreement about whether Khan sold this apartment in 2022, we should remove this from his bio. Specifically, remove the statement "He paid Rs11.97 million for a Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment". Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

All of these are old disputes except one. I do not think they can bring old disputes to DRN in this manner. The only dispute currently being discussed at Talk:Imran Khan#Additions is the proposed addition of Rocha's opinion. They argue that it is a widely known fact. If that is the case, then there is no need to cite the opinion of a non-notable author published on the website of an advocacy group or think tank. Widely known facts should be supported by mainstream reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 272#Imran_Khan, which involved the same three participants and was closed on 13 June 2026. I think it would be better if these disputes stayed on the article talk page, and if WikiEnthusiast1001 found that every other participant disagreed with him/her, he/she accepted that as consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Cute, but your claim that every other participant disagrees with me isn't accurate, Burrobert has no issues with my edits. If anything, it's the opposite. No one agrees with Sheriff and Sheriff doesn't agree with anyone else either. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

As an uninvolved editor following the talk page, I note that there is no consensus against WikiEnthusiast1001. The primary standstill stems from SheriffIsInTown aggressively gatekeeping the page, using double standards to block verified facts and reliable global outlets. LesIie (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

As an uninvolved editor following the talk page, there is no mention of an opened DRN discussion at Talk:Imran Khan and it is hard to believe that you just stumbled upon this discussion. I note that there is no consensus against WikiEnthusiast1001 There is never a consensus pro or contra an editor; consensus is always about content. The DRN discussion concerns content, not editors, but your statement speaks volumes about how you might have stumbled upon this discussion. As for the accusations against me, this forum is for discussing content disputes, not for making accusations against editors. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The filer had 'suggested' to take this to DRN on the talk page, and DRN is a public noticeboard. LesIie (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I am ready to moderate this dispute if moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule D and the statement that South Asia is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, Imran Khan. I am asking each editor to state what changes they want to make to the article, in what section and paragraph, or what changes another editor wants to make that they disagree with. One editor has said that some of the disputes are old. The moderator will decide what disputes are current, but a dispute should have been discussed on the article talk page extensively and inconclusively within about the past two weeks. If a dispute is stale, it should be made current by resumed discussion on the article talk page. What are the issues?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I would like to add several edits that I believe are supported by reliable sources:

• To the Imran Khan#Economy section:

 "After his ouster, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that Khan's economic policies were a "mixed bag at best," but credited Khan for taking a "bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments."[1] 

• Khan's appointment of Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee to the "Military appointments" section.^[2]
• An addition to the "Post-retirement from cricket" section noting that Khan successfully defended himself in a libel case brought by Ian Botham and Allan Lamb, which was described at the time as the most expensive libel case in cricket history.

 "In 1996, Khan won the most expensive libel case in cricket history when he successfully defended himself against a lawsuit brought by former England captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb.[3]  Botham and Lamb accused Khan of calling them uneducated racists in an interview with India Today's Shekhar Gupta. The case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", ended with a 10–2 majority decision by the jury in favour of Khan."[4] 

• An update to the "Relationship with the military" section to reflect that Javed Hashmi now says Khan "might have" compromised, in contrast to his earlier allegation where he seemed sure that Khan had "conspired" with "disgruntled elements in the army" during his political career.

 "In regards to the "Charter of Democracy" proposed by the incumbent government of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi told The Diplomat  in June 2026, that though Khan might have compromised with the military to come into power in 2018, "now he has nothing to gain from any compromise – neither with the PML-N and PPP nor the military establishment".[5] 

• Since Burrobert has proposed removing the entire line regarding Khan's apartment at Shahr-e-Dastoor, I have no objection.
• A quote from Herald staffer Zaigham Khan, who reported that Imran Khan was involved in a political pressure group with Hamid Gul and Muhammad Ali Durrani that ultimately never materialised. The quote by Zaigham, who broke the news, said Khan "quickly became uncomfortable with the idea of being seen as a puppet in the hands of Gul."^[6] This would belong in the "Political career prior to premiership" section.
• I suggest revisin the lead's statement where "He supported General Musharraf's 1999 Pakistani coup d'état." Adding only the word "initially" to the beginning would clarify the chronology but it would still omit important context so to maintain accuracy, we would need to note that Khan later opposed him.^[7] Khan's rationale for his early support was that his party did not want to see Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who he viewed as corrupt, return to politics.^[8]

I have no questions. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

As I stated previously, out of all of these disputes, only one has been discussed extensively during the past two weeks. The rest are either old disputes or newer ones that have not been discussed extensively during that period. The OP decided to step back from them because they did not want to invest more time in discussing them, but since they are already at DRN, they now want to bundle them all together. My point is that if the OP does not want to invest the time to discuss a dispute extensively on the relevant talk page, they should not ask other editors and volunteers at DRN to invest their time in resolving it.

The article was 17,000 words long at one point, mainly because this same OP kept bloating it with opinions. It was tagged with Template:Very long, and in order to resolve that tag, we had to remove a lot of opinion, both positive and negative. We only kept opinions attributed to notable individuals, reducing the article to 10,000 words, which is the recommended length mentioned in WP:CANYOUREADTHIS. Now, after resolving that tag, the OP wants to embark on the same path by adding more opinions, mainly positive ones attributed only to non-notable individuals. If we do that, why did we remove the previous material? If we add back everything that was removed, the article will again exceed 17,000 words.

That is one issue. The second issue is why we should add more opinions at all when the article is already at its maximum recommended length. Why can’t we stick to independently verifiable facts? They say these are widely known facts, so why not add them as facts and source them to mainstream sources? Why do we need to present them as opinions expressed on an advocacy website? I am fine with including the claims regarding the investment strategy as long as they are supported by a mainstream source stating that Khan did that.

The dispute regarding the libel case was already resolved in another DRN discussion, and I am fine with including the text as agreed there.

Regarding Hashmi’s statement, the OP is misinterpreting it by claiming that Hashmi is saying something different now from what he said in 2014. He is actually saying the same thing: portraying Khan as an opportunist who benefited from establishment support in 2014, but who has nothing to gain from it now and therefore would not do that now. Hashmi is just one of hundreds of politicians in Pakistan. If we include his opinion, there will be no stopping someone from seeking to include the opinions of other politicians about Khan, and the article’s length will again become an issue.

The Zaigham Khan and Musharraf parts have not been discussed at all during the past two weeks, but I oppose their inclusion. Zaigham is a non-notable individual, and if we include his opinion, then on what basis did we remove the other non-notable opinions to address the length concern? As for the Musharraf part, the proposed wording is editorializing and goes beyond what the sources themselves support.

The Nadeem Raza and Constitution Avenue apartment matters have also not been discussed extensively on the talk page during the past two weeks. The mention of Raza was removed during the trimming exercise because the CJCSC post is largely symbolic and inconsequential. I do not think it needs to be mentioned in an article that is already at the maximum recommended length. If one looks at Raza’s article, it only mentions his appointment and nothing after it. They may do a great deal during their tenure, but typically nothing is considered significant enough to include in their Wikipedia articles. That is what I mean by the appointment being inconsequential and therefore not worth mentioning in an already lengthy article.

I am not in favor of removing the existing content about the apartment. It already has consensus for inclusion, and there is no policy violation. However, I am against the addition of the new content added by the OP. The new content is sourced to a source that quotes anonymous sources. We cannot wikivoice content that is attributed to anonymous sources. In addition, there is no clarity that the new source is referring to the same apartment already mentioned in the article.

Sorry for the lengthy response, but this is also a consequence of the OP bundling many largely undiscussed disputes into one discussion. It is difficult to address each one without a lengthy response, which is why disputes should first be discussed extensively on the talk page. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• As already mentioned, the video titled "Imran Khan provides his perspective on the May 9 riots in July 2023" is long-standing content. There has been no discussion about removing the video on the talk page so it does not need to be discussed here. If an editor wants to remove the video, they should start a discussion on the talk page.
• Assessment of Manuel Pérez-Rocha: Pérez-Rocha can be considered an expert in the area of trade and investment agreements so his opinion is worthy of inclusion. It is published by a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, which is described as "one of the five major independent think tanks in Washington during its first decades". I don't see that the source is disqualified because it is a think tank. Other organisations and think tanks which we use as sources in Imran's bio are the International Crisis Group, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Pakistan Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, International Press Institute, Noria Research and International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
• The apartment on Constitution Avenue: we may need a discussion about this on the talk page before discussing here. I will note however that there are sources which state in their own words (i.e. not attributed to anonymous sources), that Imran sold the apartment in 2022.[3] [4]. It is therefore inappropriate to list it amongst his wealth as at 2024. We should either remove it entirely or mention the purchase and sale of the apartment somewhere else in the "Wealth and assets" section. Burrobert (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Maybe I wasn't clear about what I am and am not trying to do at DRN. I am not an editorial board, and am not offering a binding opinion (unless I have agreed to provide a binding Third Opinion). It is not necessary or useful to persuade me that your view is correct, because I am making a deliberate effort to maintain neutrality. When I ask what changes you want to make to the article, or what changes you oppose to the article, I just want to know what you want, not why you think that your edits will be the best to improve the encyclopedia. The decisions on proposed changes will normally made either by compromise or by RFC. It is more important to identify what you want, so that the disputes can be identified, than why.

So, once again, please identify the issues concisely. Overly long statements do not clarify what the issues are, even if they may later clarify how to resolve the issues. If there are multiple changes that you want to make to the article, you may list them in very short paragraphs or in bullet-point format. I will decide whether an issue is ready for discussion, ir too new, or is old or stale, so please identify as many issues as you think need identifying. What are the issues?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The OP wants to add Perez-Rocha's opinion. I oppose its inclusion as an opinion, but if there is a mainstream source that independently confirms the underlying fact, I am fine with including that fact, sourced to the mainstream source. The OP also wants to include content about the libel case. I oppose its inclusion as written by the OP, but I am fine with including it in the form agreed during the prior DRN discussion. I oppose all the other changes the OP wants to make. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• I think that Perez-Rocha's opinion should be added to the article and believe the source to be equivalent or better than others that are already being used in Imran's bio.
• I think it is inappropriate to list the apartment at Constitution Ave among Imran's wealth as at 2024, given that there are sources which state that he sold it in 2022. We should either remove mention of it entirely, or mention the purchase and sale of the apartment somewhere else in the "Wealth and assets" section. Since this does not appear to have been discussed on talk as yet, we may need to move the discussion of this point to the talk page, unless of course some agreement can be reached here. Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I want to add the following:

• To Imran Khan#Economy: "After his ouster, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that Khan's economic policies were a "mixed bag at best," but credited Khan for taking a "bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments."^[1]
• To Imran Khan#Military appointments: "Khan appointed Lt. Gen. Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in November 2019."^[2]
• To Imran Khan#Post-retirement from cricket: "In 1996, Khan won the most expensive libel case in cricket history when he successfully defended himself against a lawsuit brought by former England captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb.^[3] Botham and Lamb accused Khan of calling them uneducated racists in an interview with India Today's Shekhar Gupta. The case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", ended with a 10–2 majority decision by the jury in favour of Khan."^[4]
• To Imran Khan#Relationship with the military: "In regards to the "Charter of Democracy" proposed by the incumbent government of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi told The Diplomat in June 2026, that though Khan might have compromised with the military to come into power in 2018, "now he has nothing to gain from any compromise – neither with the PML-N and PPP nor the military establishment".^[5]

The filing editor wants to make four additions to the article: Addition A: To Imran Khan#Economy: "After his ouster, Manuel Pérez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that Khan's economic policies were a "mixed bag at best," but credited Khan for taking a "bold stand against international investment agreements that give transnational corporations excessive power over national governments."^[1]

Addition B. * To Imran Khan#Military appointments: "Khan appointed Lt. Gen. Nadeem Raza as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in November 2019."^[2]

Addition C: * To Imran Khan#Post-retirement from cricket: "In 1996, Khan won the most expensive libel case in cricket history when he successfully defended himself against a lawsuit brought by former England captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb.^[3] Botham and Lamb accused Khan of calling them uneducated racists in an interview with India Today's Shekhar Gupta. The case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", ended with a 10–2 majority decision by the jury in favour of Khan."^[4]

Addition D: * To Imran Khan#Relationship with the military: "In regards to the "Charter of Democracy" proposed by the incumbent government of Pakistan, Javed Hashmi told The Diplomat in June 2026, that though Khan might have compromised with the military to come into power in 2018, "now he has nothing to gain from any compromise – neither with the PML-N and PPP nor the military establishment".^[5]

The other editors are asked to state whether they agree, partly agree, or disagree. If you disagree, or partly agree, please explain why you disagree, or what the disagreement is.

One editor objects to the listing of the apartment on Constitution Avenue. I don't see where that apartment is mentioned in the text of the article. Please explain.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply

In Imran's bio, we have used the term "Shahrah-e-Dastoor apartment" to refer to the Constitution Avenue apartment. Burrobert (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I am in favour of A and C.

I am not against B and D. The sourcing for B and D is fine and the content of both is consistent with other content in Imran's bio. Hence, both are suitable additions to the article.

Regarding the Constitution Avenue apartment, we should change the text to either remove mention of it entirely, or mention the purchase and sale of the apartment somewhere else in the "Wealth and assets" section.

Note that a previous dispute was lodged regarding C, but the outcome of that dispute has not been implemented. Burrobert (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I am in favor of A only if we have a mainstream source confirming the underlying fact. I am not in favor of including it as an opinion sourced to an advocacy website. The author is non-notable, and we previously removed opinions by non-notables. If we include this as an opinion, it will open the floodgates to the inclusion of opinions by non-notables, including those that were removed previously, we cannot just have double standards, this will be detrimental for the article in the long run. I am only finding mainstream sources saying that he aspired to annul these agreements, but no source says that he actually annulled them. I do not think his aspiration alone merits inclusion in an already lengthy article.

I am not in favor of including B because it was an inconsequential appointment, and I do not think it has sufficient encyclopedic value for inclusion in an already lengthy article.

I am in favor of including C, but only the text agreed upon in the previous DRN discussion.

I am not in favor of including D, as I do not think Hashmi is saying anything different from what he said previously, and he is just one of hundreds of politicians in Pakistan. If we include his opinion, it will open the floodgates to including the opinions of other politicians about Khan.

As for the apartment matter, we have sources from 2024 saying that he disclosed it as his property in his nomination papers for the 2024 elections, which was his own voluntary action. We cannot just mention everything else he disclosed but not mention the apartment. The sources also state that he paid Rs11.97 million for the apartment. These new sources mention that he sold an apartment in 2022. My question is whether this was the same apartment that he declared in his nomination papers for the 2024 elections. The follow-up question is that if he sold the same apartment in 2022, then why did he declare it as his property in the 2024 election papers? Since this confusion exists, my suggestion would be to include the sale of the apartment as a separate sentence without linking it to the one declared in the 2024 election papers. We can attribute it by saying something like, "In 2026, X reported that he sold an apartment for X million..." We must not state that it was the same apartment he declared in his 2024 papers unless a source explicitly states so. This must also be sourced to a source that does not attribute the reported sale to anonymous sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The filing editor has asked to make four additions.

A is an addition to the Economy section.

B is an addition to the Military appointments section.

C is an addition to the Post-retirement from cricket section,

D is an addition to the Relationship with the military section.

One editor agrees to the addition of A. Another editor says that their agreement depends on finding a mainstream source. Can a mainstream source be found?

One editor agrees to the addition of B. The other editor disagrees, saying that it was not a consequential appointment and so would be undue weight. Will the disagreeing editor withdraw their disagreement, or do we need an RFC?

One editor agrees to the addition of C, and the other agrees, but only if the text is what was agreed to in the previous DRN discussion. We have had three recent RFCs on Imran Khan. Exactly which DRN, and what wording was agreed to?

One editor neither agrees nor disagrees with D, and the other editor disagrees with D. Do we need an RFC?

There have already been three DRNs on Imran Khan, one month ago, eight months ago, and one-and-one-half years ago. If there are any more content issues, please identify them now so that we don't have yet another DRN this Christmas.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC) reply

For A, I was unable to find a mainstream source stating that Khan annulled these investment agreements.

For B, would you be willing to provide your opinion on whether you consider it due or not, or if there is a noticeboard that can help us decide the dueness of the content, you are welcome to engage such a noticeboard.

For C, the text was agreed upon at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 272#Imran Khan and was: In 1996, a jury, by a 10–2 majority, accepted Khan's statement that he had been misquoted in allegations that he had called Ian Botham and Allan Lamb"racist, ill-educated and lacking in class," in a case the judge described as a "complete exercise in futility."^[1]

For D, I have no further comment beyond what I have already said in opposition to its inclusion, and I stand by it.

You mentioned recurring content disputes. It is unfortunate, but I do not see an end to them unless people are willing to amend their ways and stop POV pushing, stop misinterpreting sources, and stop wikivoicing attributable content. If POV pushing continues, I will continue pushing for NPOV, and the resulting disputes, if not resolved on the talk page, will continue ending up here.

Since you asked about any other content issue, one that I foresee landing at DRN in the near future is the matter of Khan's video under the section Imran Khan#Legal matters (2022–Present). I would like to have it removed. This 4-minute 30-second video is a slap in the face of WP:NPOV. 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. It was extracted and added by the OP a while back, but we do not know the merit of its inclusion. 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 | 21:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I think that this is a comparison of what the editors have said about the four proposed additions. On the one hand, verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and we should not be adding information that is not solidly verifiable. On the other hand, there are issues of weight and balance, which are judgment calls, and the community can decide them if necessary in ah RFC.

On Addition A, one editor states that we need a reliable source. Can the editor who wants to add the statement find a reliable source that doesn't appear to be a biased source? We don't want to have an RFC on whether to add unreliably sourced information.

Addition B is a question of due weight. If the editors do not agree, I will prepare an RFC.

A change in the wording of Addition C was already discussed and approved, and the wording to be added should be: In 1996, a jury, by a 10–2 majority, accepted Khan's statement that he had been misquoted in allegations that he had called Ian Botham and Allan Lamb"racist, ill-educated and lacking in class," in a case the judge described as a "complete exercise in futility". Unless there is an objection to this wording, I will add the statement to the article.

Addition D is a question of due weight. If the editors do not agree, I will prepare an RFC.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I don't see how Perez-Rocha is biased, but in any case, I found this and this.

For Addition B, CJCSC was a significant office. As noted in an article published yesterday, it functioned as an "nuclear manager role... a post which was abolished."

Do you think it would be worth mentioning in Addition C that this was described by Jojo Moyes in The Independent as "cricket's most expensive libel case"? It conveys the significance of the case.

I stand by what I said for Addition D. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Addition A: I believe the source we have for this is fine. it is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, which is described as "one of the five major independent think tanks in Washington during its first decades". We have used many other organisations and think tanks as sources in Imran's bio without an issue.
• Additions B and D: I support including these additions in Imran's bio.
• Addition C: It is a terrible meandering and obscure sentence. What case is it referring to? However, I did agree to it in the previous dispute so won't oppose it now. Burrobert (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

For A, WikiEnthusiast1001 brought new sources. The Express Tribune does not mention Khan at all, The Dawn source mentions Khan. I might be able to accept wording based only on that source, but they will have to propose the wording, and we can evaluate its encyclopedic value after that.

For B, if the moderator cannot give their opinion on it, and we have no forum we can use to decide its due weight and an RFC is the only option, then I might be willing to concede to including a very short sentence, as RFCs are very time-consuming, and I do not think this matter is worth taking to an RFC.

C is already decided and no to wording of "most expensive libel case", it is undue for Khan's biography.

I will not concede on D. They can launch an RFC if they want to, although I would prefer a forum that can provide an opinion and help us decide. Otherwise, I can foresee an RFC after an RFC.

@Robert McClenon Do you have anything to say about the video matter, or do you think I should start a discussion on the talk page? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC) reply

There seems to be a dispute about sources here. I recommend reading WP:RS and WP:RS/PS for guidance about reliable sources. There also seems to be disputes about WP:NPOV here. I can help if I have time to. 🦅White-tailed eagle ^{Talk to the eagle} Stalking eagle 13:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@WhiteTailedEagle Yes, please, help us sort this out if you can. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I am in the process of acting as the moderator of this dispute, and I thank any other editors for any comments and advice either to me or to the participants, but I will continue moderation.

If there are any questions about the reliability of sources, please state what the sources are, and I will ask about them at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

One editor asks whether I can give my opinion, and whether there is a forum that will advise on matters of due weight. The closest that we have to a forum to advise on due weight is the neutral point of view noticeboard. Sometimes there are answers at NPOVN, and sometimes there aren't. I will only offer my opinion if the editors agree that they will accept it as a binding opinion. I will not offer my opinion under other circumstances because an editor may disagree with it, and then discussion resumes, but I am no longer neutral.

I have tried to summarize the proposed additions and the comments on them in this table. Is there agreement that this summary of viewpoints is correct?

We will have to use an RFC unless we can reach agreement or compromise. If there are two, three, or four items of disagreement, we will use one RFC

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the summary Rob. Can you change the summary of my comment alongside item C. I was highly critical of the wording proposed by Sheriff but said I would agree to that version since I had agreed in an earlier dispute. I actually think the wording you have given at item C, which I think was proposed by WikiE, is a good version and I would prefer it. In short, I agree to the inferior version proposed by Sheriff, but would prefer WikiE's version. Let me know if this is unclear. Otherwise I think your table is an accurate summary of the dispute. Burrobert (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Your table is fine with me, other than the change I requested in my reply above. I don't think you should give an opinion about questions in this dispute. The forums you suggested would provide a wider range of viewpoints and allow for more flexible discussions than this venue. Your suggestion of bundling any outstanding issues into one RfC sounds good if it is feasible. Burrobert (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Sweet table! I have no other questions. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I would have loved to agree to the moderator's opinion being binding, but it would not achieve much if the other parties did not agree. There is no question about WP:RSN; these might all be WP:RS, but we do not include everything covered in reliable sources. My concern is more about whether the mention of an inconsequential appointment (on which I was willing to concede), and the opinions of a non-notable author and a politician, are due in a lengthy article, as well as the long-term consequences of agreeing to such an inclusion. If I do that now, I am bound by my agreement for future such inclusions as well. Think about the opinions of other Pakistani politicians, and the same applies to the opinions of a non-notable authors. If I have myself removed such opinions previously to reduce the article's size, I cannot simply agree to the inclusion of these opinions in principle. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

If we cannot make a binding agreement here, I will draft an RFC. I see that there are also concerns about the article's length, which I am willing to help with. Since there is no question about RSN, I don't see a reason to discuss reliable sources unless there is a question about any sources. I still see a concern abut WP:NPOV, which I am also willing to help with. I also see a question about the notability of the author of a source, which I don't see as particularly important. Are there any more questions? 🦅White-tailed eagle ^{Talk to the eagle} Stalking eagle 21:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@WhiteTailedEagle I would appreciate any help you can offer regarding WP:NPOV on the items being discussed here, especially the video under Imran Khan#Legal matters (2022–Present). In my opinion, it is a gross violation of that policy and should be removed without discussion. WP:NPOV states 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. Considering this, I do not think we need editor approval or need to meet any demand for consensus before removing a gross violation of WP:NPOV. This video is produced by the subject's party, is erroneously subtitled, contains contentious statements by the subject, and fails the core principle of WP:NPOV, namely, "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This video was neither produced nor published by a reliable source and should be removed without meeting any demand for consensus.

I also see a question about the notability of the author of a source, which I don't see as particularly important. Do you mean that concern about notability is invalid when judging whose opinion to include and whose not? I believe WP:RSEDITORIAL applies here, as it clearly states that notability is a factor in determining which opinions to include, as in Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) ... What do you think about this? This is one factor. The other factor is that we do not have any other source stating that Khan terminated any treaties. Rocha himself states, "Khan had begun a process...". Beginning a process does not mean that Khan actually terminated the treaties, and there is no confirmation of that anywhere. Rocha then links The Express Tribune as his source, but that report does not even mention Khan by name.

The other factor is the article length and the determination, in view of that, of whether we should include the opinion of an author who fails the notability factor mentioned in WP:RSEDITORIAL and who is himself relying on a source that does not mention the subject, in an article that is already lengthy enough. If we dismiss the notability and length concerns, these are just a few of the numerous negative opinions by non-notable individuals (Hugh Southey and Aqil Shah) about the subject that were removed by me citing these concerns. We will have to apply the same standard to those, and they might get restored under the criteria we establish here or elsewhere. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

 Throughout their history, the majority of Byzantines self-identified as Romans (Romaioi). They called their state Romania (i.e. Romanland) or Romais, which was the direct continuation of the ancient Roman empire.[2]  Their rulers were the emperors of the Romans, their capital was New Rome (Constantinople), and often called their language Romaika (i.e. language of the Romans).[3] [4] [5]  BreadAndHumus (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply 

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Bengali dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Msasag (talk · contribs)
• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs)
• Jacklincoln47 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over the classification of certain language varieties (Rangpuri/Kamtapuri, Sylheti, Chittagonian, Surjapuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese (Goalparia dialects), Assamese (Kamrupi dialects), Odia (Northern dialects)) on a map file (File:Bengali dialects2.png) and its versions (like File:Bengali dialects.png) across multiple articles. The map currently classifies these as dialects of Bengali.
1. 3/4 users agreed that these language varieties should be excluded from the maps on Bengali dialects. The 4th user and creator of the maps agreed only to remove the Kamrupi and Goalpariya dialects and the Hojai district of Assam.
2. It should be noted that these varieties have recognition as distinct from Bengali by modern linguists, ethnologue etc. Surjapuri and several others lack Bengali linguistic identity among any speakers. Several also have formal recognition from government (Kamtapuri/Rangpuri, Rajbanshi, Assamese, Odia).

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

File talk:Bengali dialects2.png#Issues with maps

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm hoping an uninvolved editor can help evaluate whether the sourcing provided is sufficient grounds to exclude these varieties from maps specifically about Bengali dialects.

This DRN request is premature, but I will leave it open rather than closing it because the problem can be remedied. The discussion has been in the wrong place. The discussion has been on the file talk page of a map rather than the article talk page. I am marking the file talk page to show that the discussion is being moved to the article talk page, and am asking the editors to resume discussion on the article talk page for between 24 and 48 hours. One reason is to see whether any other editors offer opinions, and another is for the editors to restate, on the article talk page, what the issues are. I will check on the discussion in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've posted the summary on the article talk page as requested, pinging the involved editors. [10] Msasag (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• A*Pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zirthes (talk · contribs)
• Livelikemusic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am in a disagreement with the user Livelikemusic over where an image should be positioned in the A*Pop article. The image in question is of Tyla performing at the Montreux Jazz Festival in July 2026, and is currently positioned directly under the A*Pop#Release and promotion section of the article. When I first added the image in this edit I positioned it directly next to the "Live performances" paragraph (under the Release and promotion section) which I believe is the correct thing to do as the image directly relates to that paragraph. At the time because the paragraph was quite short, the image caused "section bleeding" (as referred to by the other editor) whereby it pushed into the "Singles and videos" paragraph directly below. Livelikemusic then removed the image in this edit, giving this as a reason for doing so. Subsequently, I expanded the "Live performances" paragraph to where positioning the image alongside it would not "bleed" into the "Singles and videos" paragraph below, and re-added the image in this edit. Livelikemusic proceeded to once again remove the image citing "section bleeding" as the reason, despite the image now now longer pushing into the "Singles and videos" paragraph, something which they seem to have ignored. I then re-added the image again in this edit, after which they moved the image to a generic position at the top of the Release and promotion section. I am highly confused as to why they chose to position the image here, and their reasoning for not having it alongside the "Live performances" paragraph currently.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I started a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:A*Pop#Montreux Jazz Festival image in "Release and promotion" at the other editor's request and to also prevent an edit war, however they have shown reluctance to participate in an ongoing discussion with more than one response. I tried to request a third opinion, but was unsuccessful due to the discussion on the talk page not being thorough enough.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate additional opinions on where the image should be placed under the Release and promotion section of the article, such as next to the Live performances paragraph, in its current position, or somewhere else.

My response, which I left via this edit, pretty much sums up my stance, including reference to Manual of Style (e.g., MOS:SECTIONLOC) and other editing guidelines (e.g., how-to guide) while exampling why I took the stance I did within my edit. I never responded to the other response as I was awaiting to see if any other users participated in the discussion to provide other points of view, especially after being accused of "nit-picking", which I was not. I felt it safe to await to see if others brought their own opinions and views, and was doing my due diligence to participate in a talk page discussion. Not sure why a noticeboard discussion needed to be opened after only two days, though. Seems a bit hasty, especially after it appears a 3O was declined by Doniago, due to what they cited as "insufficient conversation". livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule A. It appears that there is an issue about the placement of an image. I have three questions. First, if there is an issue about the placement of an image, I am asking each editor to provide me with a link to either a version of the article or a sandbox copy of the article showing exactly where they are proposing that the image be located. Second, are the editors willing to accept my binding Third Opinion? (I will not provide a non-binding opinion, because that would make me non-neutral in any subsequent discussion.) Third, if there are any other content issues, please state what part of the article you want to change that another editor disagrees with, or what part of the article another editor wants to make and you do not want made.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Wikipedia noticeboards

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Pages that should not be manually archived
• CS1 errors: ISBN date