Talk:PTI intra-party elections case

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

---

PTI intra-party elections case → Election Commission of Pakistan v. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf – This court case set a new precedent that ECP can prohibit a mainstream party from retaining its electoral symbol over minor irregularities. We should use standard title per the manual of style (Manual of Style/Legal). HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The policy starts with the statement "Articles should be titled according to their commonly recognizable names." Regarding the assertion that this instance established a precedent, this is inaccurate. Similar cases have occurred in Pakistan's legal history where an entire party was either banned or denied an electoral symbol. Furthermore, the suggestion that these were minor irregularities reflects the editor's viewpoint rather than that of the Election Commission of Pakistan or the Supreme Court of Pakistan. There are many other examples on Wikipedia using common names rather than their official case titles, those examples being Musharraf high treason case, Panama Papers case, Fake accounts case, and Toshakhana reference case. If we adhere to this editor's claim, then we would label the case as "Election Commission of Pakistan v. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf," while the Toshakhana reference case would be titled "Election Commission of Pakistan v. Imran Khan." This could make it difficult for readers to distinguish between the two cases. However, by using titles such as "PTI intra-party elections case" and "Toshakhana reference case," readers can immediately understand the subject matter of each article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This case was decided based on Elections Act, 2017 so it sets a new precedent. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  That is about deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: This term "Election Commission of Pakistan v. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf" is not used by any reliable sources. I searched it on Google and it gives 4 results, with Wikipedia being two of them. Thus, I don't believe this article should be moved to this proposed name I don't even think this name should be in the first paragraph. Jemhorrett (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Pakistan has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2024 (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.

Introducing the word "controversial" in the lead

@HistoriesUnveiler Please restore WP:STATUSQUO by reverting yourself and establish consensus here for adding the word "controversial" to describe the case as such. It goes against the neutral point of view to characterize the case as controversial in the lead section, regardless of how many sources use that term. Many cases with political implications are often seen as controversial by those who disagree with them. Additionally, it's impossible to determine the number of sources that might not describe the case as controversial. The article's body already adequately covers the contentious aspects of the case. You may expand on these points within the body of the article to provide a balanced perspective, but refrain from including them in the lead section until you achieve consensus here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is an essay. The community expects a better reasoning from you. The case is clearly cited as controversial in the given sources. If you want the community to dismiss sources as unreliable then go to WP:RSN or start a WP:RFC. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A few sources describing something as controversial is just considered WP:FRINGE, WP:ONUS is on you to establish the consensus for inclusion of that term. You included that term, an editor immediately challenged you thus you do not have consensus to include that term. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)