Talk:No-confidence motion against Imran Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merging of "2022 Pakistani Constitutional Crisis" into this article[edit]

Much of this article covers the same scope as [one], and I think multiple articles on the same topic will only add to confusion. As this is currently the bigger, more detailed, and better sourced article, I think "2022 Pakistani Constitutional Crisis" should be merged into this one. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are speaking about 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis. I thought it would be better to give link here than correct link in above message. Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this merge and redirect as this was not discussed. I disagree with the merge as I think the constitutional crisis will become a larger and separate issue as it progresses. Please see WP:MERGEPROP if you wish to propose this through the usual channels so others can discuss. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings @Arcahaeoindris: I do agree that 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis will continue to have constitutional perspective which legal luminaries and constitutional experts from across the world continue to discuss. So certainly that article has independent standing.
Original name of this article itself was 2022 Pakistani political crises and a user unilaterally changed the name and narrowed down the scope only to No-confidence motion against Imran Khan. The problem in narrowing down the scope is we can not include summary of 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis in 2022 Pakistani political crises because scope is narrowed down. Not only that 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis has mainly legal perspective and 'No-confidence motion against Imran Khan' has only limited parliamentary perspective and both the articles will continue to exclude larger political paradigms and discussions which came into play and exasperated into a crisis of sort.
If you see present reaction section in 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis many reactions are beyond constitutional realm and part of larger political paradigms and discussions.
Pakistan Social media and media is discussing legitimacy of political perspectives of feminist movement in Pakistan in light of this whole political saga but which article to fit that in? [1]
I am for broader scope and title in place of present No-confidence motion against Imran Khan for improved coverage and perspectives.
@Elminster Aumar, Ainty Painty, and Mar4d: ongoing discussion may be you would be interested in sharing your inputs.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku thank you for the mention, @Arcahaeoindris I started the original article related to the political crises here, this is essentially a political issue about removing a government from the federal government, provincial governments and senate. Courts only involved themselves later due to a ruling by the deputy speaker which is disputed, the decision by the courts will be of limited effect, Pakistan's constitution limits the involvement of court in parliamentary proceedings.
I initially wanted to cover all the subjects in the original article and take it to a good article status, however, there are many different thoughts by different editors on this, so let's have everyone's take on it.
The latest page with the political crises title was made by a sock puppet, they are now banned here Elmisnter! (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging the two pages may make sense in order to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING, as the constitutional crisis is effectively a result of the no-confidence motion being dismissed. It may be argued that the no-confidence motion was never held in the first place, because there was no voting to begin with after the Speaker dismissed it. But then, we also know the Opposition held its own "mock" no-confidence vote after the ruling party members left, on the grounds that the Speaker's dismissal of the earlier session was constitutionally invalid. The Court will eventually decide if the Speaker's dismissal of the session was valid or not (and if invalid, what the next steps should be), and if the Opposition's mock vote too was valid or not.
I still feel there should be a separate article for the "no-confidence vote" against the prime minister, and that it should combine the constitutional crisis into it because it is independently notable as a political event. For the associated political events e.g. no-confidence motion in the Punjab Assembly, the incidents that occurred prior to the motion, the defecting members of the ruling party who crossed the floor in favour of the Opposition and the various allegations levelled against them, we should have a separate article called the 2022 Pakistani political crisis. This latter article should act as the parent article and contain all the background material of events leading up to the no-confidence vote and other events from domestic politics. The "no-confidence motion" article will then become a sub-article of it and focus only on the no-confidence motion against the prime minister and the events after it. This will also prevent the article from becoming too big. Mar4d (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's described as a constitutional crisis in WP:RS. See [1] and [2] for example. Still oppose a merge, and to invite further discussion to the proposal someone need to add merge tags to both pages and a discussion template as per WP:MERGEPROP. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcahaeoindris it is also described as a political crises here & here by Aljazeera here by dw.com & here by washington post here by France24 Elmisnter! (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Additional comment': It seems as of 4th April itself there was a small edit war for overlapping information in both the articles.

Here Geo TV cites a Gallup Pakistan Survey, it's unclear which article it can be taken note of into.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://tribune.com.pk/story/2351098/aurat-march-called-out-for-poorly-worded-statement-on-current-political-discourse , https://images.dawn.com/news/1189864/do-politics-not-concern-women-ptis-shireen-mazari-seems-to-think-so

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not merged. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion above, am formally opening a merger proposal from 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis. To quote @PeaceThruPramana26:, reasoning is "Much of this article covers the same scope as 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis, and I think multiple articles on the same topic will only add to confusion. As this is currently the bigger, more detailed, and better sourced article, I think "2022 Pakistani Constitutional Crisis" should be merged into this one." Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I think that the no-confidence motion and constitutional crisis are two different events, however related, but independently complex. The no-confidence motion, which itself has become quite notable due to it being cancelled after being laid, is at the root of the constitutional crisis, which has been caused by the abrupt dissolution of the Parliament by the President on advice of Prime Minister who was to face the no-confidence motion. I think that no-confidence motion thing has largely almost been done with, on the other hand the constitutional crisis shall continue to grow with upcoming events on the question of care-taker, the supreme court analyzing the constitutionality of all the events, the act and role of the President, the Prime Minister (and perhaps Army as well). Therefore, in light of the above, I suggest that merger not be made, and the 2022 crisis article be expanded, as things pan out slowly but gradually. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As pointed above, the No confidence motion and the constitutional crisis are two separate events although the latter was the reason for this crisis Jibran1998 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the No-confidence motion page should probably be merged into the Constitutional Crisis article, if only because this part of the greater issue of Imran Khan's government collapsing: That is to say, the no-confidence motion is melting into the Constitutional Crisis. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Clearly the No-confidence motion and the constitutional crisis are two separate events, yes, they are interrelated. The failure of the movement has led to later crises - and this in itself is a big event going on right now. Ainty Painty (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No-confidence motion should be covered separately, its coverage should start from the day it was presented till the day it was revoked. The article for the constitutional crises should be continued from the suo moto notice of the court and closed once the verdict is passed, aftermath should be covered in same article or with independent articles, whatever is needed. @Mar4d @Bookku can also comment. Elmisnter! (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in earlier discussion I am not too keen in merger proposal since technically 'a constitutional crises' article can stand alone, even as a stub not bad idea, provided you have editors who can write genuinely on legal and constitutional matters. But in practice I would wonder whether article will get such writing support able to handle legal perspectives in depth, until then such article likely to remain compromised with political comments and overtones with prevalent Wikipedian majority taking the call how the political overtone should look like in reaction section.
The bigger concern what I expressed how we can expand the scope of 'No-confidence motion against Imran Khan' to include peripheral political crises. Unless we do that the other article on constructional crises will continue to risk getting compromised with details that do not fit in its scope comfortably enough.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The current page is already long, merging the other page would make the length ridiculous. Besides, the no-confidence motion specifically documents the process of opposition parties voting against Khan, while the constitutional crisis refers to the general situation happening in Pakistan's governmental institutions Twa0726 (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keep proposal on hold and relist again after a week. Pakistan's Supreme court seem to have ordered putting vote of no confidence again and reduced constitutional crisis to level of storm in a tea cup as of now. So effectively the case of creating special page turned out to be case of WP:recentism. Whether readers will read day of rejection of motion by dy speaker then read page of constitutional crisis and again go back to no confidence motion. Are we expecting that to happen with readers? I am not suggesting approving merging immediately but to relist this merging proposal after as week so by that time result of no trust motion will be clear and then relist for merger thats how I think.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose not the same. Panam2014 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This explenation makes no sence whatsoever. Cyclonicpot (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What matters is not whether they are separate events, but whether there is enough sourcing to have two articles. Now that the no confidence vote has been ordered to move forward, I believe there is. The constitutional crisis article can cover the American intervention accusations, the mechanism of the dissolution, election plans, protests, and Supreme Court ruling. This article can focus on the vote itself, why it's taking place, and who's supporting it. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Despite that they are related, the causes and effects, as well as significance of each event are independent of one another. Thus, the two pages should remain separate. NipponGinko (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - One is a vote in Parliament, another one is about everything that happened altogether. Not the same thing. -- Manasbose (talk | edits) 03:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Vote of no confidence was a constitutional process and the crisis was an unconstitutional dismissal of the vote and unlawful dissolution of Parliament which lasted 6 days. While they are linked, they should be separate articles. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan 💬 04:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that No-confidence motion is only a part of this crisis.--Johnson.Xia (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Also: Why was the date removed from the article? We all agree that this is happening now in 2022, yes? PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The current article is already large and increasing as events unfold, instead 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis can be properly linked in the current article to make it easy for for readers and editors as well to read and edit. - DownTownRich (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your comments, all. It's clear that this is snowballing towards opposing the merge, so will close the discussion. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Main page news[edit]

Some one take initiative in listing on the page Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates according to Imran Khan, international conspiracy came true after all. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I updated contributors and thanked them too Elmisnter! (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Mandarax (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Imran Khan
Imran Khan
  • ... that Imran khan was the first prime minster ever to be removed from office via a no-confidence motion? Source: Al Jazeera

Reuters BBC

    • Comment: I am using the wizard, I did not expand the article 5 times ,the article is almost a month old, he was removed on 10th April.

5x expanded by Elminster Aumar (talk). Self-nominated at 23:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Ineligible as not expanded 5x within the last 10 days. (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: also ineligible because the article has run at In the News, which means it can not also appear at DYK after its ITN run. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related Dyk nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Mandarax (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's not eligible, as it previously appeared as a DYK, on 26 November 2012. See WP:DYK#New, rule 1d.

(
)

Created by User4edits (talk). Self-nominated at 23:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Ineligible, already appeared at DYK (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss → Category: Pakistan–United States relations[edit]

This seems an interesting category in this article's context. Some one placed some other removed. IMHO a fair discussion would help.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations from a prime minister who lost confidence of the parliament, didn't provide any evidence, whose foreign office (ministry) didn't comment on this, the diplomats made no comment, the army chief rather refuted the claims seem more like a category under Imran Khan - United States relations than Pak-US relations. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A sitting prime minister's allegation against another country should be counted both ways, the view of the prime minister of that country, which would make it relevant to the Pakistan-US relations, this will also be considered view of Imran khan government so we can say Imran Khan administration - Biden administration relations is also relevant. Elmisnter! (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category is relevant as mentioned below in my comment to User4edits Elmisnter! (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, at least as of now, requisite amount of discussion does not seem to take place on this point by other editors too joining in. I am not pointing out following to take Imran Khan's side or praise, rather I have included reasonable amount of criticism also of Imran Khan govt elsewhere on Wikipedia.

a) We wikipedians can not decide or judge what is true and what is not, we just go ahead taking note of whatever information we come across in credible sources.

b) When Imran Khan leveled allegations (most probably to impress his vote bank but that is not for us–Wikipedians to judge) Imran Khan was still a Prime Minister. His foreign minister and other Cabinet ministers leveled charges alleging U.S interference when still they were on their official post.)

c) Understanding and interpreting diplomatic communique is diplomatic and political job not the military one. Though what Military chief said can be taken encyclopedic note of, right of interpretation of diplomatic and political pressure existent or not is primarily diplomatic and political job (and later of political history and political sciences) military can not be considered expert in the same.

d) Only a Prime Minister or a Minister is authorized to speak for government in any parliamentary democracy whether information provided by a Prime Minister is right or wrong it gets it's weightage by their official position at that time.

e) May be issue was for month or so brought in 'Pakistan–United States relations' into discussion. And likely to remain election plank in future elections from Imran Khan to differentiate his party from other political parties.

f) One can draw parallel to U.S. and European allegations against Putin (Russia) for clandestinely interfering in democratic process of US / western elections. These charges also not proven beyond doubt but affect US/ Wests relationship with Putin / Russia or domestic political positioning of respective leadership

g) Mar4d (talk · contribs) seem to have reduced weightage of information regarding 'Imran Khan's visit coinciding with the invasion of Ukraine'. Why U.S. will be unhappy against any routine visit of Imran Khan to Russia unless coinciding with the invasion of Ukraine?

Mar4d's edit summary says 'off-topic, trim to footnote'. It's looking off topic to them because they narrowed scope of the article to just No-confidence motion. If political controversy taken into account to it's fullest, information regarding 'Imran Khan's visit coinciding with the invasion of Ukraine' won't look off topic.

My personal perception has been, Pakhtun Imran Khan was chosen by Punjabi dominant military as a suitable mascot for temporary purpose un til Afghan issue sorted out and heal hurt feelings of Pakistani Pakhtuns. Their job is done and Imran Khan is dumped by bringing in Punjabi leadership back into the seat. This I am writing so to make it clear that by writing few points above I should not look like having any sides in Pakistan politics of my own

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and judicial coup?[edit]

An editor is repeatedly reverting the recent events as "Successful judicial coup" at Military coups in Pakistan, and citing WP:NPOV references, etc. You're thoughts are welcomed at the that talk page Thanks, User4edits (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Pakistan Army smear campaign into this article[edit]

It seems Pakistan Army smear campaign should be merged into this article. MarioGom (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this. I have gone ahead and boldly merged the article as it is unlikely to have lasting significance per WP:N(E). Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology[edit]

Vote of no confidence main points 221.120.235.74 (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-confidence_motion_against_Imran_Khan&oldid=1219344504"