Talk:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

Ideological base

The section, as it is now, is terrible. First and foremost because it doesn't even give a hint of what's the ideological position of the party, but also because of the language. Not everyone can write in english like a brit or an american, but seriously... Pharaohmø 19:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [[=100001363679075&p[]=178072748893839]] Share Imran Khan on facebook I'm not sure how much of an ideological base Imran Khan's party has, but the entry here is hardly objective - it looks more like a party leaflet. Can someone who actually knows Pakistani politics rewrite it with a bit more objectivity please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.113 (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally correct. Rewriting is essential. Zaslav (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The original article was much better. How can a political party have a major influence on the middle class and win only 0.8% of the national vote? Kf0030 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Point well made. This article: Economy_of_Pakistan#Growing_middle_class suggests a middle class of 30 million people. Their votes wwere rougly 150m (mid point in 2002 from Pakistan) x 40% (turnout) x 70% (rough voting age population) x 0.8% = 350k. That's about 1% - even allowing for my broad brush approach it doesn't make a "major influence". I'm going to delete this sentence. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Share Imran Khan on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsaeed163 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Electoral Position

I haven't worked on Political Party entries, but shouldn't this have a table of what their electoral position has been in elections they have contested? --iFaqeer (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

|Youth_wing = Insaf Youth Wing

180.178.141.102 (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Tis article about a major Pakistani political party only seems to contain one citation as reference. Might not more refs/citations be added pl? Thanks 39.54.138.29 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja

Citations needed

Although the content in this entry is comprehensive, I could hardly find enough citations to back half the content here. It should be taken up as a vital exercise to clean up the entire article and present factual information with proper citations so as the people looking for their party favourites in Pakistan's next election get accurate information. Please note that any unreferenced or unsourced material will be removed from the article and also ensure that there are no peacock terms and weasel words as well. - Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2012

Can you remove the picture of Ejaz Chaudhary and Ahsan Rasheed on the PTI webpage? You should put a group photo of Party leaders here? What are trying to show by just showing pictures of these two people only?

192.75.88.232 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The thing about pictures is availability. Are there any group shots of the PTI leadership?
BTW, I only see pictures of Imran Khan and one with Chaudhary in the background. I don't think any sort of idea is being pushed.

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

left- right politics

Left- right politics is not a specific political stance. This term is used for whole ideological politics. PTI is Social Conservative (right wing) and Fiscally Progressive (left wing) and collectively Communitarian(Centrist). it's agenda slogan 'Islamic Welfare State' says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed 313-326 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The party's actually right wing, as indicated by Imran Khan's willingness to talk with the Taliban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakbar480 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Unbiased

This article seems to be unbiased in its content. It is written in a style that is advocating the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.15.77 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

RefImprove

Is it possible to request a removal of the refimprove tag on this page - I believe it has gone through enough improvements and stands at a very authenticated wiki reference to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Dr. Awab Alvi (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There are still four sections that don't cite a single inline source. I think it needs further reference improvement. -- SMS ^Talk 13:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I will work to improve this further Dr. Awab Alvi (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a second review - Ive been working hard to re-organize the page and have updated many references Dr. Awab Alvi (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Saifullah Khan Niazi (Urdu: سیف اللہ خان نیازی), Additional Secretary General of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. He went to Huron High School, Ann Arbor, MI USA. Currently resides in Bara Koah (بارہ کوہ), Islamabad, Pakistan. Saifullah Niazi is a Member of CEC (Central Executive Committe) of the party and also a member of Central Finance Board. Early Life: Political Career: Role in PTI Intra Party Elections:

Googlibear (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, you need to include reliable sources for any factual change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Party position described here in ajk assembly is wrong. In Ajk Pti has 2 mla out of 49 Asad Javed Khan (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

PTI proved of taking Prohibited Foreign Funds recently by Election Commission of Pakistan.. must include it SHERAZ GILL (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

116.71.136.130 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

Remove Javaid Hashmi As the president of Pakistan Tehreek e Insaaf. Fmksr2007 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. as far as I can tell from http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-158367-Imran-moved-forward-against-party-decision:-Javed-Hashmi this it seems he is still president Cannolis (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

EDIT REQUEST FOR SEMI PROTECETED PAGE PAKISTAN TEHREEK E INSAF :

I want that you should include the name of one founder member whO is missing IN THE LIST. The name of the founder member is 'INAYAT KARIM ' .He joined PTI on 1st MAY 1996 6 days after the formation , He aslo fought elections on the behalf of PTI . He is a well-known person of BAHAWALPUR and now he is designated as the vice president south punjab elected by intra party elections of PTI. I have seen the list of founder member which is with PTI office and I have also seen his pics with CHAIRMAN PTI IMRAN KHAN in rallies and jalsa's now as well as at the start of PTI's history. So i want this founder member of PTI should also be included in the list of founder member with others.

Shafaq maryam (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

EDIT REQUEST FOR SEMI PROTECETED PAGE PAKISTAN TEHREEK E INSAF :

I want that you should include the name of one founder member whO is missing IN THE LIST. The name of the founder member is 'INAYAT KARIM ' .He joined PTI on 1st MAY 1996 . 6 days after the formation , He aslo fought elections on the behalf of PTI . He is a well-known person of BAHAWALPUR and now he is designated as the vice president south punjab elected by intra party elections of PTI. I have seen the list of founder member which is with PTI office and I have also seen his pics with CHAIRMAN PTI IMRAN KHAN in rallies and jalsa's now as well as at the start of PTI's history. So i want this founder member of PTI should also be included in the list of founder member with others.

39.53.130.58 (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

There are now 7 PTI senators. Senior leader Azam Swati was elected to the upper house thru a by-election. http://tribune.com.pk/story/885887/assembly-for-upper-house-ptis-azam-swati-bags-senate-seat-in-by-polls/ SKYCAN134 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

foundation date is 15 April 1996 plz correct the date. Reference is from ILMI guide for FIA Inspector.

shfaizan 17:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can you provide a link to this document or some more information so that it can be tracked down? Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 03:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150710014602/http://www.pakinformation.com:80/gilgit-baltistan/members.html to http://www.pakinformation.com/gilgit-baltistan/members.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016

Change "It's ideology" to "Its ideology", i.e. remove the apostrophe and correct this huge grammatical mistake in the 2nd sentence of the article. APal Wikiwriter (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done along with "It's leader" in the second paragraph - Arjayay (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130421081334/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/21-Apr-2013/imran-opens-lahore-poll-war-front to http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/21-Apr-2013/imran-opens-lahore-poll-war-front
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423061904/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/22-Apr-2013/imran-khan-vows-to-release-pakistan-from-us-slavery to http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/22-Apr-2013/imran-khan-vows-to-release-pakistan-from-us-slavery
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423070836/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/elections-2013/23-Apr-2013/imran-kicks-off-rawalpindi-campaign to http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/elections-2013/23-Apr-2013/imran-kicks-off-rawalpindi-campaign

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Political Position

This Al Jazeera article claims that PTI is centre-right. To what extent can we validate that it is in fact centrist and not centre-right? Masterpha (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Kanjr parti بابر حسین (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

• From Pakistani general election, 2018: "Nawaz Sharif verdict: Ahead of general elections, Pakistan Army exhibits super show of 'soft coup' to prop up extremist parties - Firstpost". www.firstpost.com. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
• From Punjab, Pakistan: Arif, G. M. "Poverty Profile of Pakistan" (PDF). Benazir Income Support Programme. Government of Pakistan. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 December 2016. Retrieved 14 July 2016. See Table 5, Page 12 "Rajanpur District" {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Reference named "auto2":

• From Pakistani general election, 2018: Kanwar, Kamlendra (7 July 2018). "Nawaz Sharif sentencing: More to the judgment than meets the eye". newsnation.in. Retrieved 8 July 2018.
• From Punjab, Pakistan: "Rigveda 1.126:7, English translation by Ralph TH Griffith". Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Reference named "auto":

• From Pakistani general election, 2018: "Pakistan: General Elections Subverted By Army-Judiciary Nexus – Analysis". eurasiareview.com. 6 July 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2018.
• From Punjab, Pakistan: Government of the Punjab – Planning & Development Department (March 2015). "PUNJAB GROWTH STRATEGY 2018 Accelerating Economic Growth and Improving Social Outcomes" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 March 2017. Retrieved 14 July 2016. The industrial sector of Punjab employs around 23% of the province's labour force and contributes 24% to the provincial GDP {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Content removed from lead

I removed this, already tagged as confusing, from the lead: "PTI has led the efforts to highlight corruption of the rulers. This effort is spearheaded by Chairman Imran Khan himself. Party activists especially Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi, Saleem Jan, Jahangir Rehman, Ali Asghar Khan, Shahbaz Gul Shinwari, Yaqoob Izhar and Dr. Farid Malik have requested party Chairman that without constitutional organization the divisions inside the party cannot be overcome which could cause us to lose general elections. Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi held a press conference in front of Bani Gala to request chairman Imran Khan to initiate a dialogue and consensus about party institution building.". Fences&Windows 13:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"abolition of personal income tax"

Does the party really stand for "abolition of personal income tax" as written in the beginning. I thought the opposite is the case, because no one pays income tax they want to raise awareness and also tax the rich more. Ceever (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page

Thank you. 205.189.94.17 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This requirement still holds. Thanks, 205.189.94.17 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Azam Khan Swati.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia D. Ritchie

Greetings,

Wikipedia has an article Cynthia D. Ritchie, you are requested to update, expand, copy edit the article. Also you can help the same by adding the article to your watch list.

Bookku (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lifting article to the GA status

Articles related politics of Pakistan need most and immediate improvements & re-write ups. A while ago when I bumped upon this article, it was almost like an advertisement poster from the party. Existing version looks much better now with a good lead but needs a lot of work on sections. I'd like it fellow editors support me replace all party with sources with third party sources with neutral write ups over all sections with maximum use of inline citations.

I know the task isn't going to be that easy as not only Pakistani politics has relatively limited coverage in scholastic sources. But also because PTI is too new party to power. If we can maintain a high quality even after these issues and obtain WP:GA status for it, it will be great. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Chief of Staff of Chairman 182.186.126.240 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Add Islamism to party ideology?

Recent actions by Pakistani government suggest to me that Islamism should be added to the party ideology Black roses124 (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

My removal of content

I removed[1] significant additions by 51412techno. The primary reason was that most of the text added under Position read like an election pamphlet; certainly it was far from an impartial, encyclopaedic description. Then, the "political position" in the infobox was expanded with promotional slogans, like "social justice", etc. (which obviously has nothing to do with political positions); party membership data was updated as "2021", however all the three added references were nearly a decade old. And so on. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Logo fair use?

The logo has fair use in it. But its just a crescent Islamic symbol on a green circle with PTI written on it. So shouldn't it be public? Just curious hence asked. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 07:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2022

Hi.I have noticed a major mistake and am requesting to fix it, I am an experienced webpage editor and am wanting to fix a mistake.By Yours Only:Imran Khan 2400:ADC1:144:3B00:31C2:C634:338B:EC91 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

Please change the name of the title from "Foreign Funding Case" to "Prohibited Funding Case". Source: https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/966429-ecp-changes-name-of-foreign-funding-case-to-prohibited-funding Aesthetic Coder (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Is there any indication that new official name is the common name of the case now? – robertsky (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

election symbol of PTI

Election symbol of PTI on the page is incorrect. The one used belongs to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat_Parivartan_Party.

You can use the correct one available here:

File:PTI Election Symbol.png

Slyshooter (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct. Both bats have different designs, but we can't really use this image, this is promoting the subject. Thanks Ahated (talk!) 05:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

please bring chairman on top then vice chairman, president, general secretary and so on. 120.17.9.251 (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The hierarchy in the source code is correct, the algorithm itself picks the president as the highest person. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

182.178.196.177 (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Add Omer sarfaraz cheema, Arif Ali,Hamid Khan,Najib Haroon and Naeem Ul haq as party founders with Imran Khan

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

2400:ADC1:19A:3400:5AD:73B3:1B35:260A (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add in the information Colum (Sports & Culture Wing) Insaf Sports & Culture Wing.

Regards,

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

PTI Pakpattan president

New president for Pakpattan, Mr. Mian Murad Bhatti President for tehsil Arifwala, District Pakpattan. General secretary is Ali Hussnain Khan Rath. PTIfan123 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

PTI presidents

Please include PTI presidents for each district, not just a vague list. Since, everyone from each district is very meaningful and important for the party. PTIfan123 (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

Ahmad grewaal (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Supreme Leader

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Chairman & SG infobox lines

For the time being, the Supreme Court judgement in Election Commission of Pakistan v. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is in force regarding the party's latest internal elections. In the detailed reasoning released recently the bench holds that no election was held at all on 2 December 2023. Regarding two officers mentioned in the infobox in particular, it stated (p. 18):

• "Mr. Umer Ayub Khan describes himself as the Secretary General of PTI, but without there being anything credible on record to show how he had assumed this important position."
• "Mr. Gohar Ali Khan describes himself as the Chairman of PTI, but in his case too there is nothing credible on record to establish how he had claimed to be the Chairman, and supplanted himself with Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi"

Should the infobox lines be changed to reflect this, i.e. back to Imran Khan for Chairman and vacant for SG? Regardless of its merits, the SC order states the legal position until and unless it's overturned; on the other hand, in practical terms the party rejects the judgement and continues to treat Gohar as Chairman and Umer Ayub as SG (negotiations, media appearances etc.). Media sources aren't unanimous: Dawn has Gohar as "former PTI chairman", the Pakistan Observer refers to him as chairman. 62.77.213.132 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Ahmad grewaal (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

| leader = Imran Khan

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --TheImaCow (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

64.38.107.101 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

PTI also has left wing factions.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Pti seats need to be updated

this entire page needs to be updated really but the seats are the important and most noticeable Ricky dicks (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Need for sources

@Saqib You must provide sources for the content you restored; otherwise, I will have no choice but to revert your changes. Without sources, the content is considered original research. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Seats should be updated.

Seats Should be updated. 2001:1670:10:2727:5EA:98C:E045:8393 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Secretary general

@Titan2456 The source you provided does not definitively show that Omar Ayub’s resignation was not accepted. It merely indicates that some party leaders disagreed with Imran Khan’s decision to accept his resignation and urged reconsideration. This information is from the day he resigned. Do you have a more recent source confirming that he remains secretary general? If not, we will need to remove that entry, as numerous sources state that Imran Khan accepted his resignation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.geo.tv/latest/552970-omar-ayub-to-continue-serving-as-pti-secretary-general-since-resignation-not-accepted Titan2456 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Try adding latest sources so everyone can save time from inadvertently fighting edit wars. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Titan2456 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Not adding sources

@Titan2456 Response to your edit summary here, Why do you rush to undo my edits?, why do you add content without adding sources? Your continued belligerence by not adding sources has wasted my time; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You can avoid this hassle by adding sources with every piece of content you add because I believe you are here with a pro-PTI agenda, which raises suspicions about the content you add. This content you added lacks sources and would not stand if you added them. I have already told you many times that there is a lot of confusion about PTI’s status in the political landscape of Pakistan, so unless you add sources, I am not going to let those contributions stay under my watch. Don’t waste your time and mine as well. I would like to work on something else; I am not enjoying this. And rest assured, I will take this to the next level if you do not comply. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been patrolling this article like a Sheriff since before I joined Wikipedia, why are you asking for sources for 2024 but not for 2018, 2013 and the elections before? You are not even telling me where to add sources, in the table? All the elections have their citations from the election article itself like I said before. Titan2456 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Make sure you get your facts right before you open your mouth. My first edit on this article was on 26 January 2024. You can’t expect me to overhaul all of Wikipedia. We’re all volunteers doing what we can with our available time. If you want to remove all other unsourced content, feel free, otherwise, I’ll do it once I’ve addressed other priorities. Revising the whole article is more time-consuming than making spot corrections or addressing sections when needed. Add the sources in the table, if you can add unsourced notes in the table, you can certainly add sources in the table. For instance, provide a source showing Aslam Iqbal’s current affiliation in the Punjab Assembly as PTI, add a source for the note about PTI claiming more votes than they received, and source the claim of PTI having 133 seats in the PA. Do the same for all other entries. If you plan to add content without sources, don’t waste your time. If you’re concerned about time, then allocate a bit more to include sources. I will clean up this page of all unsourced content once I’ve taken care of other priorities, so you should start sourcing all the remaining unsourced content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I also started editing in January 2024. It is not about how many registered seats there are, they are PTI members nonetheless, it is NOT about PTI’s current status in the assembly but how many seats PTI members, regardless of which party they were on the ballot on, won, which if you bothered to check the elections linked are the exact same number as I put.

What is the point of using language like “Before you open your mouth” or “I will take this to the next level”? Bhai this isn’t some debate or political game trying to kick the other editor out, just tell me what I need to fix, and I’ll say if it doesn’t need to be fixed or not and give a reason, if the reason is not proper then we’ll have a normal discussion. Titan2456 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

My straightforward response is to include sources with your content, and we will evaluate their validity. “Trust, but verify,” as the saying goes. Any content without sources is subject to removal, as I have emphasized repeatedly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m adding citations to the notes. Titan2456 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent ECP notification, only a specific number is categorized as PTI. You should include the same numbers in the electoral performance section as in the infobox. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I did the ECP notification for the main infobox, but in the electoral performance, I am referencing the election articles themselves like 2024 Punjab election or 2024 general election, which say “PTI-Ind” won a certain amount of seats which I added. Titan2456 (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot use WP articles as a source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Instead of doing this, might it be better to add a footnote saying that the seats won were won by Independent candidates representing PTI, they are PTI members unable to contest due to the intra party election case. All the electoral history composition bars represent how many seats were won during the election not how the assembly looked after the election. Titan2456 (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Civility aside, it is pretty simple. No source, no content. Make sure what you add is cited by a "reliable" source. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 where will citations need to be added for the template to be removed. Titan2456 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the question fully. Anything on the page that is not cited by a reliable source needs to be sourced or removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point out an example of an uncited claim. You are the one who added the template that this page needs additional citations. Titan2456 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I went ahead and removed it all. You can see it here. Wikipedia is not the publisher of original research so feel free to add it back once you have reliable sources to support. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown added the updated info :)Titan2456 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

While we’re addressing this, it’s important to have no unsourced information. I agree with CNMail41’s action to remove all unsourced content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who added any claim. I am responding to your comment - "Can you point out an example of an uncited claim. You are the one who added the template that this page needs additional citations" - which appears to be a WP:CIR issue as looking at the page it was clear there was a large amount of information that had no sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that now. Titan2456 (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

May 9 riots ATC order

@SheriffIsInTown, the large paragraph you added about an ATC order against Imran Khan in the May 9 riots which is backed by only one source should be removed, as it is about an ATC order against Imran, not PTI. It should be included on the May 9 riots page, not PTI’s page. Furthermore, it should be trimmed down or backed by more sources. Main thing is, that courts have issues plenty of cases against politicians in many political parties, but there are no sections in the Pakistan Muslim League (N)’s history section talking about the cases of corruption or in PPP’s article talking about cases, hence PTI should follow a similar format. Titan2456 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

When you included a section about the crackdown on PTI related to the May 9 riots, it presented a one-sided view. It needed to be balanced, and that’s what I did. It doesn’t matter what’s on other party’s pages; if you include something about a crackdown or anything else against PMLN, it should also be balanced with any opposing perspective that exists. I wasn’t the one who added the initial content; the initial one-sided content was added by you, and I only provided balance. As for the number of sources, one source is sufficient as long as it supports the content. Removing that content would amount to censorship. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No, the current content already states that the Punjab Police used geo-fencing to incriminate PTI and which leaders were involved. Simple logic is, why should Imran Khan’s legal troubles and one ATC order be notable for a large paragraph of inclusion in PTI’s history? So many orders have been issued against many politicians including several to Khan, his legal issues should not be on PTI’s page, just like Nawaz’s or Zardari’s are not on PMLN or PPP’s pages. The information about PTI leaders giving directives to protestors as per Punjab Police should be kept, but definitely not the ATC order. Titan2456 (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This is because the order is directly connected to the May 9 riots and outlines the involvement of Imran Khan, the party’s founder, in those events. It specifies that PTI, through its members and its founder, played a role in the riots. If we include the May 9 crackdown, we must also highlight how the party, through its members and founder, was involved in the riots. That is why this content is relevant there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph achieves that very well, there are 2 paragraphs on government allegations and 1 on PTI allegations. By removing this one ATC order that is on Imran Khan, not PTI we will achieve a balance of 1 negative and 1 positive paragraph. This isn’t even notable for inclusion in PTI’s history. The section is meant for significant areas of PTI’s history, this one ATC order is not significant whatsoever. Including 3 paragraphs for one event in PTI’s history that already has an independent article is overkill. There is a fine line about not including Imran Khan’s legal troubles in this article about PTI’s political history and you are missing it. Titan2456 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already clarified my stance and do not share your viewpoint. I view this removal effort as an attempt to censor negative information about the party and its leadership. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a clear example of WP:IDHT, which aspect of my point do you think is censorship, I have clearly explained how this info is not notable and can be included elsewhere or trimmed to preserve balance. Titan2456 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact, it is you who is exhibiting IDHT behavior, similar to your actions in previous discussions, last in the series, the lengthy exchanges on the Ali Palh talk page. I have already clarified why the information is relevant to the article, so I'm not sure what else you want me to say. I cannot keep repeating the same explanation. I have addressed the points in your last comment in my previous responses already. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up Ali Palh? You have not adressed my points on 1 vs 2 balance and the relevance of inclusion in PTI’s history, if you cannot address this, I will have to take this discussion to WP:DRR. Titan2456 (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained the relevance of inclusion; please refer to my comment: This is because the order is directly connected to the May 9 riots and outlines the involvement of Imran Khan, the party’s founder, in those events. It specifies that PTI, through its members and its founder, played a role in the riots. If we include the May 9 crackdown, we must also highlight how the party, through its members and founder, was involved in the riots. That is why this content is relevant there. Arguing 2 vs 1 is illogical; as long as the content is relevant and properly sourced, there is no reason to remove it. If you’d like, we can compare the word count of the content added to that section by you versus what I contributed. Please paste the content you want to remove, and I will clarify its relevance for you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is the same logic you used in the discussion on whether to include Shakeel Khan’s de notification on Ali Amin Gandapur’s BLP, you said that since the Gandapur ministry de-notified Shakeel, not Gandapur it should only be on the ministry article. That is exactly what I am saying here. This piece of information is about one ATC notice against Imran Khan, which is newsworthy at best should be in the May 9 article, not in PTI’s history. This article is about PTI and its history, one ATC notice is not worthy of inclusion here, let alone an entire paragraph. Titan2456 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You can’t compare apples to oranges; that’s a different issue that was addressed on the appropriate talk page. Regarding the notice, it is a court-issued notice that addresses the involvement of PTI leadership in the May 9 riots fairly. It’s not acceptable to have an entirely one-sided section on the crackdown without also explaining the reasons for it and PTI’s role in the riots. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That is what I am saying trimming to one or two sentences would solve the problem in balance and everything. It does not incriminate PTI leadership only Imran Khan. If there is already a paragraph talking about PTI leaderships involvement and directions, condense this overly long paragraph into one sentence, that way there is an equal amount of negative and positive information as well as a mention of the court order. Titan2456 (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that level of detail is necessary to counter PTI’s claim that this was a false flag operation. The ATC order clarifies that PTI leadership was indeed involved in the riots. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So then trim it to balance in 50-50, I have shown the word count / paragraphs below. Titan2456 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There is literally 1 sentence talking about PTI’s claim of false flag operation compared to a large paragraph to counter it, that is not balanced whatsoever. Titan2456 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Claiming it was a false flag operation is a serious accusation. Simply stating that it wasn’t isn’t sufficient; it requires an explanation of why it wasn’t a false flag. There should be details about who within the party was involved and at what level. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Also read WP:FORUM, you are clearly telling me you are trying to disprove PTI’s “false flag” accusation. Wikipedia is for presenting both viewpoints so instead of adding “In contrast to PTI’s claims,” we must add a balance especially when summarizing a main article, but you are saying one sentence compared to one paragraph is balanced. It is clearly WP:CPUSH by you by saying it is a serious accusation and why it wasn’t a false flag is your opinion, some people say it was a false flag, some people don’t, it is contested information so read WP:ISNOT as well. Titan2456 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s not me saying this; the source itself is refuting the false flag operation claim. You included that PTI argues it was a false flag operation, which implies that they believe their members weren’t involved in the riots and that the state orchestrated it all. However, the ATC court’s findings are the opposite, showing that PTI members, from the chairman down to various levels, were involved. We need to present these findings in detail, including the specific roles of the PTI members as outlined by the court. Without this, the content lacks balance. You’re framing it as if it’s my personal view, but everything I’ve added is based on sources. I can provide more sources to back the ATC court’s findings, but I am not in favor of removing any of the content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source does not disprove anything, it is a judge’s ruling the source says how the ATC claims PTI was involved, you are framing it like the source is saying this, it is the ATC. Why include an entire paragraph for the ATC Order, as I said the section is for significant moments in PTI’s history, one paragraph about the ATC’s claims to “balance” one sentence about a PTI claim is clearly not balanced. Instead of the overly lengthy paragraph why not something like this:

In contrast to PTI's claims of a false flag operation, an order from Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Khalid Arshad implicated PTI's founder, Imran Khan, in orchestrating attacks on military installations, government properties, and police officials. The order asserted that Khan had instructed PTI leaders to create chaos and exert pressure for his release if arrested. Titan2456 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed some of it, that is the best I can do. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

From which policy did you base the 50/50 rule? Frankly, there’s no justification for requesting the removal of sourced information that explains why it wasn’t a false flag operation, other than your desire to censor negative information about PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:BALANCE Titan2456 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

To settle this matter, I am open to taking it to DRN if you’d like to pursue that option. However, I do not support the removal of any content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can see the wordcount for yourself:

Police / State Narrative

On 9 May 2023, after the arrest of Imran Khan, the leader of the PTI, from the Islamabad High Court grounds, nationwide demonstrations by PTI supporters turned into violent riots. PTI workers and members caused incidents of vandalism, looting, and arson, resulting in Rs. 1.98 billion in damages to government and military facilities. Punjab Police, using geo-fencing reports, alleged that Imran Khan and key PTI leaders coordinated efforts to incite attacks on the residence of the Lahore corps commander and other sensitive locations. Police reported over 400 calls made by PTI leaders, including Imran Khan, instructing rioters to target these areas. Inspector General of Police Punjab Dr. Usman Anwar confirmed the use of geo-fencing to trace these communications, naming Imran Khan as a prime suspect in orchestrating the attacks. Other PTI leaders involved included Hammad Azhar, Yasmin Rashid, Mehmood-ur-Rasheed, Ejaz Chaudhary, Mian Aslam Iqbal, and Murad Raas, all of whom were reportedly in contact with the rioters and issued specific instructions for the attacks, while PTI has denied these claims and alleged that government agencies were behind the riots.

In contrast to PTI's claims that government agencies orchestrated the May 9 riots as a "false flag operation," a detailed order from Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Khalid Arshad implicated PTI's founder, Imran Khan, in orchestrating attacks on military installations, government properties, and police officials. The order revealed that Khan had instructed PTI leaders to create chaos and exert pressure for his release if arrested, as testified by two prosecution witnesses. The court order described a meeting held on 7 May 2023, where Khan allegedly directed PTI leaders to prepare for potential unrest on May 9, should he be detained. He purportedly warned through a video message of a scenario akin to Sri Lanka's unrest; if he were to be arrested, encouraging party workers to engage in what he termed a "real jihad for real freedom." Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ali Amin Gandapur, also reportedly supported Khan's stance, stating that protests would escalate nationwide and globally if Khan initiated a hunger strike. The prosecution's narrative suggested that Khan orchestrated a criminal conspiracy, rallying top PTI leadership to incite actions that culminated in the attack and arson of the Jinnah House (Corp Commander House, Lahore), aiming to intimidate the government. Judge Arshad's order emphasized that pre-arrest bail is not intended for those who conspire to destabilize the government and engage in acts of terrorism. Consequently, Imran Khan's bail plea was dismissed, reinforcing the court's position on his alleged involvement in the riots. The Lahore High Court meanwhile stated that Imran Khan had no relation to the May 9 riots and that there is no audio or video evidence available on record to prove that Khan was behind the attacks on state installation on May 9.

PTI Narrative (This is PTI’s own page, so it should actually be more)

Furthermore, PTI has alleged that the May 9 riots were a “false flag operation” designed by the Pakistan Armed Forcesand The Establishment to destroy and crackdown on the party as well as to arbitrarily arrest party leadership. After the riots, a crackdown was initiated by government of Shehbaz Sharif against PTI leaders and workers, with thousands arrested, with rights groups raising concerns regarding arbitrary arrests, custodial torture, and forced disappearances. PTI revealed evidence suggesting that PTI workers and party members were harassed, and unlawfully arrested. PTI leaders were forced to quit party/party positions in televised press conferences. Businesses of PTI leaders who did not quit the party were sealed. Mian Aslam Iqbal alleged that dowry for his daughter's wedding was seized by Punjab Police; and Ali Nawaz Awan alleged that his home was demolished. A crackdown was also initiated on vocal women supporters of PTI - the most prominent of which was Khadija Shah, a businesswoman and granddaughter of former Pakistani Army Chief, Asif Nawaz Janjua. Former Federal Ministers, Shehryar Khan Afridi and Ali Muhammad Khan, former Governor Punjab Omer Sarfraz Cheema, and former Punjab provincial ministers, Yasmin Rashid and Mehmood-ur-Rasheed have been incarcerated since the end of the riots. Even once released by the courts, they were immediately re-arrested in other cases; Khan has been rearrested six times, while Afridi, and Rashid have been rearrested twice. Cheema's wife was arrested as she came to attend her husband's hearing. Afridi was not allowed to attend his brother's funeral and was kept in inhumane conditions in a 'death cell' reserved for those on death row. Titan2456 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References

This is still not balanced, the same point of 1 paragraph to balance 1 sentence is unacceptable, it is clearly unbalanced. I understand that PTI’s claim of a false flag operation is a bold claim so I would accept 2-3 sentences to counter the 1 sentence on false flag, but the content is still very much unbalanced with an entire paragraph dedicated to this order. Titan2456 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown just letting you know, I am waiting for a response to this. Refer to my comment above. Titan2456 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In my view, it is not unbalanced; WP:BALANCE applies to the entire article, and it doesn’t state that it must match word for word or sentence for sentence. You should not contest the content as long as it is sourced and relevant. If you have additional concerns, you can pursue dispute resolution, as I am not willing to remove any more content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

@SheriffIsInTown what is the purpose of this POV tag? the section clearly talks about the criticism of Usman Buzdar and corruption allegations, how is it unbalanced in any way? Titan2456 (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s insufficient, as it feels too mild compared to all the praise included. Additionally, content about provincial administrations doesn’t belong in that section. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Section is for PTI’s history from 2018-2022. Copy-Paste what is POV so it can be fixed. Titan2456 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole section is POV, it needs to be balanced with neutral perspective. Every thing was not copacetic during federal government so if you mention the achievements, you need to mention the shortcomings or anything negative that might have happened during that tenure. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

“Financial troubles leading to IMF loan and criticisms for certain comments and policies” should be enough. Titan2456 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t sufficient; it should be more detailed as explained on Talk:Imran Khan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Electoral results

@Titan2456 You are using a student newspaper for NA results, in my opinion that is not a reliable source. For PA results the source mentions IND-PTI, never alone PTI, majority of sources out there also refer to them as independents albeit backed by PTI but never alone PTI. We have been there before, these results do not belong in PTI article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Take the first one to WP:RSN, yes the results do, you cannot ignore these winning candidates who are members of PTI’s core and executive committees but are excluded just because they officially contested as Independent. Saama, a reliable source, clearly refers to them as PTI, not Independent. Also, if they don’t belong in PTI’s article, where do they go? Titan2456 (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Where do the Independents normally go? Even if we consider the first one as reliable source, we cannot still ignore the majority of the sources which refer to them as independents. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What sources? CNN has even referred to them as PTI affiliated: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/asia/pakistan-election-nawaz-sharif-intl/index.html Titan2456 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The CNN story begins with the words "Independent candidates"—did you overlook that part of the story? As I said, there is no other source except that student newspaper source which refers to them as just PTI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No one is denying that ECP declared them Independent but you have to understand the concept of political endorsements, these candidates endorsed PTI and PTI endorsed them, every single MNA out of the 93 is a PTI member. The newspaper source is not invalid and other sources reaffirm PTI members won 93 seats. Titan2456 (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not just ECP, almost all sources out there refer to them as independents, unofficial support or backing of PTI does not make them PTI candidates. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

First, stop leaving condescending messages in your edit summaries of making claims without any proof of, which you have a habit of doing as I’ll have to take it to WP:ANI again. Second, what “sources” are you mentioning, provide them here, as you are yet to add a single source while I have given two. Third, while you are at it providing those not yet given sources, you must find sources claiming a different statistic for each of the National, Punjab, Sindh and KPK assemblies if you are claiming that Dunya News is wrong. Titan2456 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

We’ve discussed this many times before. Are you really going to claim you don’t know anything? First, why would you choose a student newspaper as a source? Because you couldn’t find a mainstream source that fit your POV, so you went with what you found. But here’s the thing: you can’t just cherrypick sources to fit your POV. The other source you provided, Dunya News, lists them as IND-PTI, not just PTI. Look at all other parties listed in that source—none have IND attached. Here is listing of member at NA website; look for yourself—how many PTI members are listed there? Zero, but there are 80 SIC members. The members you want to list as PTI ran as independents and joined SIC post-election by signing affidavits. If they were PTI, they couldn’t have joined another party, as election law doesn’t allow changing parties after the election—only independents can join a party, which they did. Here is another source which lists no PTI members. So, you think they were elected as PTI candidates but then disappeared into thin air post-election? Here are the election results on Geo News; how many PTI members are listed? Zero. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You are posing this as if these are random Independents, each one of them filed nomination papers as PTI but ECP rejected them, you can't say that Omar Ayub Khan and the actual Chairman of the Party, Gohar Ali Khan are independents, they are core members of PTI, same as the rest of the 93 MNAs who are members of PTI, even if the ECP doesn't declare their MNA membership as such. You can't use the current NA website for an electoral history page, so much has happened since the elections, party members have switched, Independents have joined other parties and the Reserved seats case, so the NA website right now is not a reflection of the February elections. Dunya News shows a clear number of seats won by officially PTI-backed members, are you proposing that PTI's seats be changed to 0? Media routinely reported [2][3][4] that PTI-affiliates, who were forced to run as Independent, emerged as the largest bloc in the elections, garnering 93 seats. You have not refuted the 4 Dunya News citations, as they also clearly show PTI as one bloc. Ignoring the largest bloc of an election is clearly censorship. Also, about joining SIC, sources [5][6] clearly state "PTI MNAs" joined SIC, merely for reserved seats allocation and because the ECP didn't allow PTI to. I would suggest taking it to WP:DRN. Titan2456 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"PTI backed independents", "IND-PTI", "Allies of PTI", "Independents affiliated with PTI" are not same as PTI. I have refuted Dunya News source, they do not list them as PTI candidates but abbreviate the PTI backed Independents to IND-PTI. Answer me this question, why should we use your cherry-picked sources, why not use Geo News or for example this Statista source where all independents are listed as one block. If we are cherry-picking then we can cherrypick one of these, how about that? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Geo News is a cherry-picked source, no other source claims the SIC won 92 seats and was reported as a 'seatless party' as brought up before. When comparing Statista to VOA, Al Jazeera, Dunya, ARY and other reliable news agencies, it clearly stands out.

Sources Confirming that PTI candidates (which had their nomination papers rejected and were forced to run as Independent) won 93 seats in NA

Al Jazeera "Consequently, PTI candidates had to run as independents, yet they surprised observers by winning 93 seats in the National Assembly – more than any other party."

United States Institute of Peace "The election results — the PTI won 93 of 266 contestable seats at the national level, the PML-N 75 seats, the PPP 54 seats and MQM 17 seats — are accompanied by significant controversy and uncertainty on Pakistan’s political future."

The Hawk Newspaper "In Pakistan’s general election Feb. 8, the Pakistan Movement for Justice (PTI) won 93 seats, a plurality in the National Assembly."

Voice of America "PTI candidates still won 93 seats in the National Assembly."

ARY News Lists PTI candidates out of which 93 won.

Brookings "The election result, which took a few days to come in, was a stunning upset: candidates backed by Khan’s PTI won a plurality of parliamentary seats (93 out of 266), though not an outright majority."

Sources Confirming that PTI won seats in PAs

[7][8][9]

If there are enough sources to counter Al Jazeera, the US Institute of Peace, VOA, ARY, Brookings, Hawk News and Dunya, I will concede. Titan2456 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

We are going in circles here, and you are misrepresenting most of the sources—except for Hawk and ARY. All the other sources you provided support my argument. They describe these candidates as being backed by PTI, but receiving backing from a party does not make someone an official candidate of that party. There was a legal issue about this because PTI failed to conduct intra-party elections properly. When you don’t follow the law, there are consequences. The candidates who submitted their nomination papers as PTI were declared independents. None of them objected to being declared independent or boycotted the election because of it. By participating in the election without protest, they effectively accepted their independent status. Even after winning, PTI was not banned, but these candidates chose to join SIC voluntarily, signing affidavits to that effect.

Geo is not a cherry-picked source, as you claim; it simply presents the facts. If you review their constituency data, you’ll see that no PTI candidates are listed as winners. Instead, in around 100 constituencies, independents won. How can we attribute victories by independents to PTI, whether they were backed by the party or not? Their designation as independents remains unchanged. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)