Talk:2018 Pakistani general election/Archive 1

Election 2018
Please sir update all info about genral elections 2018 .. and majority of voters cannot be register yet why? Abdul Hannan Shafiq (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Abdul Hannan Shafiq, this is not a public forum but an encyclopedia article. if you have grievances regarding the voter registration process, take it up with Election Commission of Pakistan. Because as far as my understanding goes, ECP has established display centers throughout the country since March 24 to facilitate voter registration. And the last day to get yourself registered is April 30. Further information can be found on ECP's website.- Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  10:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

2013 seats correction
Make correctionz PMLN = 128 seats PTI = 28 Seats PPP= 31 seats — Preceding unsigned comment added by StLouis2 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Total seats include reserved seats. Masterpha (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
Really sorry to bother you, but don’t you think that the recent additions of ‘pre poll rigging’ by the judiciary and the military is against neutrality? There are many in pakistan who don’t believe that this is the case, and many of the sources attributed to these sections are opinionated or analysis from outside sources. Masterpha (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can add the counter argument supported by reliable sources but the source must mention a theory behind the conclusion as to why they believe the rigging is not happening. It should just not be a statement by a government, military or juducial official. The sources I added are all independent third party with no association with PML (N) and they are discussing the complete theory as to why they believe that an epic level of pre-poll rigging is happening in Pakistan. It's not against neutrality, it's only fair to include that. Look at the history of Pakistan, four dictatorships, judiciary always sided with the dictator. No civilian government could work without pressure by military. This has been happening for over 70 years. What's the proof that they are not meddling with election process now? Actually, all the developments happening in Pakistan prove that something is fishy. Wikipedia cannot be silenced or censored on this matter. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 13:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand the history, but we cannot definitively say that rigging is happening regardless of counter arguments. We can say that there are allegations of this rigging, but saying that there is a nexus between the military is presenting opinions as facts.


 * For example, I could say that Nawaz Sharif is ‘corrupt’ with an analysis based source that presents that claim as a fact, but would that be a neutral addition? I could say that he was convicted on corruption charges but calling him *corrupt* is a different issue. Masterpha (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You would not find a third party independent source saying that Nawaz Sharif is corrupt. The sources I presented clearly say that there is a nexus between judiciary and military and that is how everyone comes to a conclusion. Otherwise nobody is going to catch Army Chief directly issuing directive to the Chief Justice, that would not mean that the collusion is not there when all the facts point to that, we ought to include that. These are third party independent sources and no allegations. We will say "there are allegation" when we will post the allegations by say PML (N) leadership not when independent sources say that there is collusion in fact present. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment You want to take a stab and address the NPOV issues so that we can remove that tag. As far as I am concerned, the content is exactly as per the sources and as neutral as possible, we cannot definitely tow the line of the people who are trying to censor press and media in Pakistan and censor the Wikipedia as well. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 13:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with the rewrite? I tried to remove the opinion parts while keeping in the facts. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  13:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything else is fine except that Jeep symbol part, especially the part which mentions all the defectors demanding for the same Jeep symbol as to give a signal to everyone that we are party of establishment especially Army (there is no Jeep brand in Pakistan, most folks associate the word Jeep with Military light utility vehicle). It is evident by the sources that there is a new political party being formed under that symbol and folks associated with that symbol has special blessing by the authorities behind this purported rigging. Is it that you did not find something like that in the sources or you found it in the sources but considered it non-neutral? <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Independent sources you have mentioned have no credibility (Fake News). All of them except 1 or 2 are just badly managed websites and forums.
 * You are fifth editor who is coming to this article to censor this information. One of them being inactive for 7 years not finding anything worth removing for those seven years except this information, couple of them seldom used accounts, a couple newly created. Looks like this content is hitting at the the right place at the right time. Look back at the 70 years history of your country and tell why should we not believe the information in these sources. As for your concern regarding these sources, a very knowledgeable admin has already looked at the content and the sources and addressed the neutrality concerns. Beyond that we are not going to censor the information. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of References you have linked (4 to 12) are based on indian news articles and forums with no credibility (fake news). Just open these reference links and read them, most of these are very poorly written by unknown writers and bloggers. It looks very suspicious that the only articles you could find were published by Indian Media and India based websites. A country which will obviously try to discredit military, judiciary & elections in Pakistan. Looks like the information you are adding is biased and based on Questionable sources or Self-published sources. Lastly I am Pakistani resident and yes I have just registered myself with wikipedia. And the reason for doing so is that justice is finally being done in Pakistan and I don't want anybody coming over here and reading lies about my beloved country Pakistan.
 * Reading your statement, it's clear that you are not here to build encyclopedia, sources being published in India does not make them fake news automatically. The reason I could find most of the sources published in India is because you have your media under threat, people who speak are abducted like Gul Bukhari. Once people of Pakistan will stop living the life of lies then you will not have to be worried about anyone reading lies about your beloved Pakistan. In that, I am on your side, I do not want people to read lies about Pakistan. It's time to look in the mirror. Pakistan is not just Pakistan Army, ISI and judiciary, it is much more than that. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 02:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Questionable sources
Dsd1010 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There have been allegations of vote rigging being conducted by judiciary, military and intelligence agencies to sway the election results in favor of PTI and against PML (N).[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Most of References (4 to 12) are based on indian news articles and forums with no credibility (Fake News). Just open these reference links and read them, most of these are very poorly written by unknown writers and bloggers.

Allegations of vote rigging

Same goes for analysis written under the heading of 'Allegations of vote rigging'. The contributor has again used same references except 2 (57 & 58) to prove his biased conclusion.

Dsd1010 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As you can read clearly that these are "Allegations" which have been made by not only Indian media but other western sources as well Jibran1998 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A joke survey was added
A road trip survey in which random people from only 56 districts were questioned was added by Masterpha. Even a scholl going children will not believe that PMLN PTI PPP three are almost equal as per this survey. Read the online resources and news papers. Contest is between PMLN and PTI. PPP is even weakest in its stronghood Interior Sindh but this joke survey shows PPP at 20%. Salutes sir for wasting our time.Jawadmdr (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * do you understand how polling works? Random people being asked is the standard in polling. Just because it may show a result that you don’t like does not mean it is not true. PPP at 20% is not totally unrealistic. You are saying it is a joke survey because it was only conducted in 56 districts? The IPOR survey conducted which shows a 3 point pmln lead only surveyed in 69 districts and, once again, used a random selection. Just because a party is at a place that you don’t want it to be is not a good enough reason to remove the poll. маsтегрна  таLк  23:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You misleading others. IPOR survey was conducted in every constituency of Punjab with over 215,000 respondents. Gallup survey also uses representative strata of a constituency. I think you are new to statistics.  Random Vs Representive strata read the basics. It will help sure. Jawadmdr (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * have you read the survey? It clearly states that the sample is weighted by province and is representative. Random is for how the survey is conducted. Also we never agreed to discussing on the talk page what polls should be added. It is common sense which polls should be added, if there is a challenge then it should be discussed. Also, the stuff you are talking about me being ‘new to statistics’ is exactly what stlouis said. I will not bring up the sockpuppet investigation again but I will reopen the edit warring discussion if you once again edit war. маsтегрна  таLк  10:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

'''Serious calculation errors in this survey. It says PMLN has 25% support. But if we multiply all 4 provinces survey %age with each province number of seats then we end up 26.3 %. I am adding a table to show this blunder in the reported nationwide numbers.'''


 * Punjab (40% x 144) =  57.6
 * Sindh (4% x 61) = 2.44
 * KPK (10% x 51)  =  5.1
 * Balochistan (4% x 16) = 6.4
 * Total = 71.54
 * %age = 26.3% Jawadmdr (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * NA seats are not representative of the population jawad.  маsтегрна  таLк  10:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

NA seats are as per population bro. Jawadmdr (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No they are not. Not 100%. And an error of 0.75-1.75 is not implausible due to rounding. маsтегрна таLк  11:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My argument is about election 2018 which is going to be conducted on election constituencies 2018 based on 2017 population census. If I accept your logic of 6 extra FATA seats more than population then that will further increase PMLN representation to 27%. Jawadmdr (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Include the survey results being discussed, editors' personal opinion does not matter, if survey puts PPPP at 20% then who are we to disagree! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 15:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The editor disputing this survey is doing it purely as a matter of personal opinion. SDPI, a reputable pollster, conducted the survey, and Herald, a reputable magazine, published it. There is nothing in WP that would bar its addition to the article.- Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  19:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Jawadmdr (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - as per WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Same decision as at Talk:Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018 - Jibran1998 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per above маsтегрна  таLк  03:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 July 2018
Please add the new survey data |1 under subsection | Opinion polls, which was added to Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018 aswell. - Jibran1998 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This survey is already under discussion and 3 users has opposed its inclusion on Opinion polling on Pakistani election 2018Jawadmdr (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Only 2 oppose inclusion. маsтегрна  таLк  03:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Involved note to reviewing administrator: these survey results were added to Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018 in several edits (see ), facilitated by the reviewing admin unprotecting the article briefly so that could update the various sections. The same should be done here. Jawadmdr also objected to inclusion on that article but a discussion confirmed consensus for inclusion (see Talk:Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 July 2018
Please add the following text with the sources after this text "Reports further suggested that there was evidence of collusion between the judiciary and military, in that two military officials were appointed to the Joint Investigation Team to investigate corruption allegations against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, which were further strengthened by the circumstances of the Avenfield case verdict against the Sharifs." in the section named "Allegations of pre-poll rigging" :

Text to be added: In the past military used to take power directly by a formal coup and then make sure that the same party does not come into power but before 2018 elections the judiciary was used to sack a government and then apply the law in a manner so that politicians belonging to outgoing government are at disadvantage while their rivals are given an advantage. The interference in judiciary by ISI, the intelligence wing of Pakistani military was also confirmed by an Islamabad High Court judge, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui. In his statement, he alleged that judges were pressurized by the said agency to not to release former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif before the election. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 03:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * can you expedite the addition of this in the article, less than 24 hours until polling begins - Jibran1998 (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion - The allegations of Justice Siddiqui are currently subjudice. Therefore the text you are trying to add comes under WP:RGW. There has currently been no concrete evidence to suggest pre-poll rigging apart from unbacked claims by certain segments of the society. Furthermore the neutrality of Justice Siddqui is also disputable as he is the brother of Irfan Siddiqui, a close aid of the incarcerated Nawaz Sharif. He was also the lawyer of Maulvi Abdul Aziz in the wake of the Lal Masjid Siege, an operation conducted by the army to weed out terrorists holed up in a mosque of Aziz's. Furthermore, his anti-army remarks came just a day before an open trial was to commence hearing on a corruption reference against him. - Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support some inclusion but not as written - needs cleanup to encyclopedic standards. The first sentence is a run-on, but is also too too closely paraphrased from the BBC source; besides, it's an opinionated editorial and should not be included. Justice Siddiqui's comment does appear to be relevant to the section, though, as major news agencies are covering it. I suggest adding a single sentence in the same location: "Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, an Islamabad High Court senior justice, released a statement on 22 July alleging that judges were pressured by ISI not to release Sharif before the election.[same 2 sources]" And responding to a question I was asked elsewhere: yes, I think this section is important, and no I don't think it's undeservedly POV (based on what reliable sources are devoting their attention to) nor unacceptably WP:RGW. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I've commented out the edit request as there's clearly not consensus for the edit as written. Editors should only make a request for uncontroversial edits, or edits for which discussion has already reached consensus. Otherwise you just get frustrated, cranky administrators learning to ignore the multiple malformed requests from your article and nothing gets done. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This was not up for discussion, every protected edit request does not have to go through a support/oppose vote, your oppose is completely baseless and without any policy backing. Wikipedia does not care whether a matter is prejudice or someone is someone's brother. It relies on reliable sources, how can we ignore countless sources claiming military and intelligence involvement in pre-poll rigging. Is this first time happening in Pakistan? It needs a courage of Justice Siddiqui to do something like what he did. This is called blowing a whistle, speaking at the right time otherwise people go into retirement and tell the truth at their dying beds.
 * We need to ignore the policyless objections. These usually come under WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this should not be up for discussion as it is covered by multitude of sources. I agree with your recommendation, let us start with adding that at the minimum. The portion you are describing as opinionated is actually a historical fact of Pakistan. It is a fact that in the past there have been four coups and governments which were thrown out, those same people were not allowed back through a manipulated election and regarding manipulation of current elections, it is proven by many sources which are already in the article that this is being done by military and ISI. I would recommend using the word "confirmed" when describing Justice Siddiqui's remarks as when we are discussing two parties and saying that military and ISI are influencing the judiciary and someone from one party says "yes, this is happening" then we describe it as "confirmed" by that party as in this case Justice Siddiqui. He is senior judge of the court where former PM Sharif's appeal was filed, the judges hearing the case gave a hearing date after the election, the senior judge is confirming that this was done at the behest of ISI. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 13:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - It wasn't a policy-less objection. I had objected on the basis of WP:RGW. Although I am open to what has suggested for inclusion. Also, please try not to use op-eds as sources as they are opinionated and most of the times introduce improper POVs to the article. -  Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  14:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are treating Siddiqui's statement as an unverified claim or allegation, we can't report it as fact. We should also add something about Siddiqui's allegations being investigated by the Supreme Court (i.e. ). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. - Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  14:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstanding about WP:RGW, I consider it an allegation against me, I do not do tendencious editing. I can list ten policies, that does not mean all of them apply here! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - In the past military used to take power directly by a formal coup and then make sure that the same party does not come into power but before 2018 elections the judiciary was used to sack a government and then apply the law in a manner so that politicians belonging to outgoing government are at disadvantage while their rivals are given an advantage. The interference in judiciary by ISI, the intelligence wing of Pakistani military was also confirmed by an Islamabad High Court judge, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui. That was a clear POV push where you are treating allegations as facts. Maybe you have a soft corner for the PMLN. - Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  14:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is what exactly the BBC source is trying to mention, you have to paraphrase the below text avoiding copyrights violation in easy to understand format without leaving an ambiguity. My intention was only that. Different editors might paraphrase it differently, the source is saying exactly what I am trying to tell in understandable language And just as in the past, the country's powerful military establishment remains the chief suspect behind the fresh round of political manipulation. In the past, the military used to either stage a direct coup or use special powers to sack an elected government and then manipulate elections to ensure it wasn't re-elected. In 2008, those special powers were done away with, leading to a first in 2013: an elected government completing its five-year term. But since then the tide appears to have reversed, and critics say the establishment is resorting to more primitive tactics to recover its edge. A three-pronged approach is in evidence. First, as some legal experts have observed, the courts have selectively applied the law to clip the wings of the outgoing government, thereby creating an advantage for its rivals. I have no soft corner for anyone, I have soft corner for uphoalding the truth and doing it in a daring and unadulterated way and will keep doing so. People have previously accused me of having a soft corner for Pakistani military and ISI, tomorrow you might say that as well or maybe you might see a soft corner for PTI. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And what is the source for the paraphrased content? An opinionated editorial based on hearsay. Neither an investigative piece nor a report based on concrete, factual evidence. Not to mention, has already ruled against its inclusion. Therefore, it is safe to say that you use the term unadulterated truth lightly. Also, plain accusations are one thing but showing that you created and proudly displayed "This user supports the Pakistan Muslim League (N)." badge on your User Page are facts. -  Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  15:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

So, drop the stick, it was ruled out by Ivanvector and that is fine. All I am saying is that you should focus on content instead of the editor and not refer policies which has nothing to do with this edit, your reference of that policy was ruled out by the same editor as well and there is nothing wrong in creating that userbox, it was removed two years ago, if you are using the display of that userbox to accuse an affiliation then removal should be considered non-affiliation. I am not sure why you are discussing me instead of the content, do you want to make it a personal war or something. Opinionated or non-opinionated, you can challenge the source, you have no right to discuss me or my intentions. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 15:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think I may have gotten a little personal in trying to prove my point but I stand by everything I have said. Consider the stick dropped. - Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  15:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am ok with that, let's start with your suggestion, add whatever you feel feasible! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 14:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added the sentence by Ivanvector that was agreed to here. If you want an additional sentence, you will have to specify the exact wording. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * After reading all the above discussion i am failed to understand how Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui has made a place into wikipedia page of Pakistani general election, 2018.


 * His allegations are not related to elections pre-poll, manipulations, he alleged pressure on judges.
 * His allegations are rebuffed by his peer Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Kasi already.
 * He put all the allegations when a case of misuse of authority, wrong usage of law, and corruption was held against him.
 * His case is still Sub judice, and he is in no way connected to general elections 2018, or any conspiracy theory itself?

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read Justice Siddiqui's statement? It read that ISI instructed judges to not release Sharif before the election. Think before objecting, now go read the definition on pre-election meddling and all the ways to meddle them. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * He was not directly involved in Shareef's case, how ISI would instruct him this? He quoted that his colleague Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi was approached, and Justice M. Anwar Kasi has denied and clearly said that Justice Siddique was incorrect nothing of this sort happened. Most importantly the point is timing ,he said this when cases of misuse of authority and corruption were open against him? What is credibility of his statement, to be quoted in article of wikipedia? His statement is already proven wrong? Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bro, you are late to the party, countless editors tried to censor this information with the type of vain excuses before which you are making now. This is very much relevant to the election as described above. Being a senior justice in the court where Sharif's appeal was filed, he has a lot of credibility in this matter. ISI is a powerful agency, Justices like Kasi and Nisar are puny when compared to a one low-lying agent of ISI, not many have courage to speak out. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 09:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope wikipedia is about correctness of information which can prevail at any point of time, its not about some one being late. :::If i am discussing some thing logically you must refute it logically, instead of saying that my argument is vain excuses or i am late to the party? :::Please refute these points logically?
 * How come chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar and many senior judges part of panama inquiry in Supreme court bench, disqualification case, and its :::appeal all puny and wrong and one high court judge who is under inquiries of misuse of power and corruption himself being credible?
 * Justice Siddique is one of the most controversial persons as he is kin to Irfan Siddique and journalist known very close to Mian Nawaz Shareef, and :::remained advisor to P.M. Nawaz Shareef. He has given one of the most controversial decisions in his career?
 * As for record Justice Siddique was never part of any case related to Shareef family, he quoted Justice Muhammad Anwar Kasi, that Justice M. Anwar :::Kasi was interfered , and Justice Anwar Kasi has denied the allegations. :::Besides, Rawalpindi district bar , whom he belong to he distant themselves from Justice Siddique, termed these allegations blame game , since cases of :::misappropriation were opened against him.
 * Finally, Justice Siddiqui is under serious charges of corruption, misconduction, misuse of law, misappropriate and he has failed to justify them in :::appex court, besides he was unable to plea these allegations when the discussion was raised in SC of Pakistan.
 * I am surprised how you are saying entire judicial system and supreme court wrong and making remarks of one judge who is under serious inquiry as :::authentic? Also, he frame charges quoting Justice Anwar Kasi, and he denied the charges? So, where this verdict stands ?


 * Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the debate has died, don't revive it. --Saqib (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, this was discussed here in this very thread, my exact proposed text was not accepted, an alternate was proposed by a neutral editor and that text was accepted and included which is exactly according to the source. No one else realized the incorrectness of information before and neither it is incorrect and I have reservations regarding your other changes as well which I mentioned in below thread. This article was edited by scores of editors before and I am opposed to such a major overhaul to the article's structure to make it more cluttered and rife with language and grammar mistakes as was done by you. As far as the judges are concerned, yes, I maintain that a low-lying ISI agent is more powerful than Chief Justice of Pakistan and Justice Siddiqui's remarks are credible, you cannot expect a judiciary which is under the influence of ISI to impartially probe the allegations against the same agency. I have nothing else further to say except that we are not revisiting this.


 * I second Saqib's advice but since I wrote this comment already so went ahead with the post. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 13:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok i will not change the text, although i disagree for this part in election 2018 article, but since multiple people are agreeing on this , lets keep it as it is. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 July 2018
Please provide the source of news that suggests pak army involvment in the 2018 election rigging 27.32.202.67 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please use this template only to request specific edits, in a "please change x to y" format. It may be a good idea to provide such a source if there is such an insinuation in the article (I haven't looked) but unless you have a source to add, there is no edit request here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources alleging the involvement of the army in elections are given under the relevant section. Click on the superscript numbers in square brackets - [XX] - to see individual references. - Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  12:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 July 2018
Want to add the latest national assembly general election constituencies map to this article. Please do so. I've recently created and uploaded this file to Wikimedia Commons. This map is based on latest delimitation by the Election Commission of Pakistan. Asadwarraich (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As per previous articles on general elections, only results map is added. You could add this constituencies map in Elections in Pakistan - Jibran1998 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Danski454 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Provincial results
Will be nice if they are in their own pages rather than having on general election page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DA9:8B00:D16D:6640:E5B1:60EE (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * they do have their own pages. Look at the ‘see also’ section маsтегрна  таLк  06:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Pre-election "Violence"
Is it appropriate or even fair to describe ISIS/TTP terrorist attacks as "violence", which seems to suggest that the voters are responsible for the violence? I think this title should be changed to reflect the presence of terrorism, by offshore entities like ISIS. --15.203.169.110 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It does not in any way suggest that the voters are responsible for violence. Terrorism is violence. People dying is violence. Bomb attacks are violencs. None of this indicates that the people are responsible. маsтегрна  таLк  18:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

EU mision anaylsis
The lead section states that EU said that the results were satisfactory and over all process was better than 2013. But according to The Guardian, it is compeletly opposite, they used Gahler words in qoutes which states: there was "lack of equality of opportunity" and "systematic attempts to undermine the ruling party".

The article also mentions that Ghaler said, "pressure on the media, "far stronger” efforts than usual to encourage switching parties and "judicial conduct" had all negatively influenced the vote. Further more they inclded Ghaler concludong remarks which says, "We have concluded there was a lack of equality of opportunity,” he said, adding that the overall process was "not as good" as in 2013."

Although he mentioned "had seen no evidence of military interference" and advised the parties to seek legal actions through proper channels. The reason I am stating this here is because it disrupts the neutrality of article.

Writing in a lead that says something compeletely opposite to another credible source needs attention. You can read the article here. Please look into this, I was about to edit but instaed writting here for discussion as Guardian is not something low key newspaper. Nauriya, Let's talk - 28 July 2018, 06:18 (UTC).


 * I see that the wordings have been changed, but as per Guardian he never said the results were satisfactory, in fact he said, the process was "not as good as in 2013." Although he found no evidence of military indulgence. Tagging you to look into this! Nauriya, Let's talk - 28 July 2018, 19:04 (UTC).
 * This has been taken care off by me, as for the mention of "satisfactory", the dawn source says so, so we have to include that, moreover Guardian also alludes to something like that about election day but quotes Gahler's concerns about the pre-poll rigging which I included in the lead and detailed it under "Pre-poll rigging" section. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 16:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am giving Guardian more credence over Dawn, do you have another source which says the same thing what Guardian says then it would mean that Dawn got it messed up. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 16:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the sources that have emerges after post elections: GEO TV, NYT, The Wire by Reuters. Nauriya, Let's talk - 28 July 2018, 20:00 (UTC).
 * International media should be used as far as possible, because we have already had reports of self-censorship by the Pakistani press. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In an earlier conclusions Gahler indeed said what it is mentioned in the lead section. But later he also said what I wrote above. But he denied any millitary involvement both in vedio press conferences and in press releases. But the two earlier statements that "elections were better than 2013" and "results were satisfactory" has bcome a subject of confusion. As now he is referring that there "was lack of equality and opportunity". And almost Pakistani and media has now also started reporting this. So this should be taken in consideration and changed the lead according to what is reported. Here is BBC article as well Nauriya, Let's talk - 29 July 2018, 10:02 (UTC).


 * The main point that I am bringing up is that the claim that all parties except for PTI have alleged rigging is very contentious. Even PTI has brought up rigging claims in some instances. And whilst I would be happy to include any information criticising the election process, I wish that this page does not become wholly anti-PTI and pro-PMLN. I would be asking for the same if it was the other way around. маsтегрна  таLк  15:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

so far, after looking into the report, the EU described the election process as ‘well-administered’. Not sure where the ‘satisfactory’ came from. If you can see the mention of the word ‘satisfactory’ from this source then please let me know маsтегрна  таLк  15:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes about military, ISI and judiciary's involvement in pre-poll rigging
Disputed edit

The article needs to be looked into for WP:NPOV. I know this is a contentious topic, but we need to present a complete picture which means not skewing analysis into the favour of any one political party. Also, some statements were not fully supported by the sources. It is very important for the lead in particular to stick with what the sources are saying, and avoid giving undue WP:WEIGHT to any one or more particular positions. I appreciate the work done by so far.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The content added by me was longstanding, check the page history, I contested your additions right away so you do not have consensus no matter what your claims about sources and NPOV, we can discuss at the talk page and decipher those and then add whatever we agree upon, as for the NPOV, check the page history, the concerns were addressed by and  to some extent. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 15:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the changes:


 * First lead change: Moving that part of pre-poll allegations under the allegation by PML (N) about election day rigging and saying "these claims were made long before the elections" makes it POV not NPOV as those allegations were not solely by PML (N) but made in international media without a reference to PML (N), PML (N) allegations can be mentioned separately in a way so it does not reduce the significance of the meddling done before these elections otherwise it reduces the significance to a level that "oh yes, every losing party makes these allegations" what's the difference here.
 * Second lead change: "Mainly due to corruption charges" again reduces the significance of observer missions report, the detailed report mention a lot of irregularities and the Guardian source does not even mention anything which alludes to "mainly due to corruption charges", can you explain how did you come to the conclusion of "mainly due to corruption charges"
 * Top of pre-poll rigging section: Again, it clearly seems that you have long-standing problems related to using the word "mainly", there were independent media reports claiming election meddling by military, ISI and judiciary long before the elections, those were not mainly by opposition political parties, actually opposition political parties were not opposition political parties then, those reports hardly mentioned that those allegations were from certain parties thus we need to include independent media reports first because those have more significance and then we can mention political party allegations. Also, "promulgated" is the wrong word here, it gives a sense that PML (N) was the main driver of these allegations otherwise they have no substance which is not correct.
 * Khan and military denial: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, Khan and military's denial in that Aljazeera source is about the rise of Khan not about pre-poll allegations so please stop coatracking.
 * Nisar confusion: Ok, that is another coatracking attempt, not sure if you are trying to be funny there or what, read the Eurasia Review source, it names Justice Saqib Nisar by name and mentions his collusion with military and ISI and you are changing it to politician Nisar like institutions like judiciary are holy cows and cannot be touched like everything in censored in Pakistan but politicians are scapegoats and we can throw any dirt on them
 * Changes at the top of election day rigging: Allegation of PTI should be mentioned but separate from other parties as that party is the winner of elections and mentioning the winner's allegations in the same sentence as other parties allegations again reduces the significance of allegations, moreover due weight should be given as there are more reports about the allegations of other parties than the allegations of PTI and some sources do not even mention PTI, especially the source you are removing
 * WP:STATUSQUO: Finally, status quo needs to be maintained and your changes should be reverted until there is consensus. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 17:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , I agree with most of your points but some I do not. Claiming that ‘For the first time in pakistani history all parties apart from pti have rejected the results’ is incorrect. First of all, if you are talking about the winning party, then in 1977 and 1997, all major opposing parties rejected the results. Secondly, the source does not say that it was the first time of rejection: it says that it was the first time that such a large delay occured. Finally pti has alleged rigging to some extent so claiming that they have not, whatever the weight, is incorrect. Additionally, not all of your edits have been checked by admins hence they have the right to be scrutinised to some extent. Regards,  маsтегрна  таLк  19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Below are the sources and what they actually say and they do mention "exception of PTI" and these are majority sources and if there are some sources which say PTI alleged the rigging then that is not majority point of view but I am still willing to include not as part of same sentence though because it reduces the significance of the claim by other parties and makes it look like a joke, mention it separately saying "According to some reports PTI has also alleged rigging in some constituencies" and I am fine with that:


 * Sources and the claims:


 * First Post: It is instructive to note here that all major political parties, arguably for the first time in Pakistan's history, have alleged some or the other form of electoral malpractices and claimed that the polls were rigged. The only exception to this remains Imran Khan-led PTI
 * CNN: But leaders of almost every political party except Khan's have alleged ballot-rigging, with some claiming that monitors did not receive final counts or were asked to leave polling stations before tallying was finished.


 * I can get you more if you want! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 21:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d be fine with everything there apart from the ‘first time in pakistani history all major parties have rejected rigging’ sentence. Only the firstpost source claims that it is the first time in pakistani history. If we cannot include the dawn source which claims that pti is alleging rigging due to it only being one source, then the ‘first time all parties have rejected’ part should not be added as it was only mentioned by firstpost. Even the CNN source doesn’t claim that all major parties except for pti have alleged rigging: ‘almost all’. I would be happy with something along the lines of ‘Almost all major parties with the exception of pti have alleged rigging’. Will not accept the ‘first time in history’ part at all: it is a false claim (see 1977) and gives too much unneeded weight to opposition claims.  маsтегрна  таLк  21:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then let's go with either "All major parties" (First Post) or "Almost all parties" (CNN) while adding CNN source and without removing First Post source. I am ok with not mentioning the history part as well provided that you bring a source to back up your claim that all major parties claimed rigging in 1970 election. Let me know which option out of the two you are okay with and off course the source regarding 1970 election. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be good with almost all parties because it does give the due weight to the opposition claims and is somewhat true. маsтегрна  таLк  07:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am finding this "first time is history" claim to be somewhat true as I am not finding any sources for your claim that all major parties rejected the results in 1970, I do find that Yahya rejected, although he was heading the biggest party which wins every election in Pakistan but it will not be good enough to make me exclude that claim. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 11:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I said 1977. Not 1970. In that election it is undeniable that all parties except for the PPP, which had won the election, alleged rigging. маsтегрна  таLк  11:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * SheriffIsInTown: I will humbly disagree. Please note that the purpose of WP:NPOV is to represent, fairly, all of the significant views covered in reliable sources. I'm afraid you lended far too much weight and credence to allegations by trying to present them as facts in the article. This is not what the purpose of Wikipedia is, and it highly compromises the neutrality of the article which we cannot pretend to ignore . There's a reason we use the term "allegations". I addressed exactly this problem before. Please note this is not the first time elections have been controversial in Pakistan, and they will not be the last. The previous elections too were marred with widespread evidence and allegations of rigging against the ruling PML-N, and so were all elections prior. Our job is to present such allegations neutrally and reliably, if they are in contention, without being partisan and giving preference to the views of only one political group, which is what I feel your views aggressively come across as. We are not the mouthpiece of any one political party. It is, for instance, well known that allegations of pre-poll rigging had been present far before the elections began, and one of the central points of PML-N's election campaign focused on this after Nawaz Sharif's disqualification. Refer to the following from this cited source:
 * Election day, however, was not when the elections first became controversial. Long before the elections, there were widespread allegations that the Pakistani military was trying to engineer a victory for the PTI. The PML-N was the loudest voice behind these allegations. In early July, the PML-N chief, Nawaz Sharif, was convicted in a corruption case for amassing wealth beyond means. PML-N alleged the proceedings and the outcome of the case were influenced by the Pakistani military. Sharif claimed he was being targeted by the military for asserting civilian supremacy. In the lead-up to the elections, the PML-N also extensively complained about pre-poll rigging in favor of the PTI through the initiation of targeted graft cases and threats/pressures on PML-N members to leave the party.
 * This is exactly what the content is supporting; nothing out of line has been quoted, and there are multiple other sources. The PML-N's campaign was not caused by the allegations, rather it was the trigger to the allegations which escalated the controversy. To claim otherwise, I'm afraid my friend, is simply misleading and falsification. Regarding Chaudhry Nisar, I have read sources which claimed he was a frontman for the anti-Sharif lobby but I have not (yet) read any source talking about the Chief Justice Nisar in particular. This would be an outstanding and WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, even if it was made by a mainstream source. You are welcome to provide reliable sources if you can see any; please note that this one is an opinion editorial, which we refrain from using! If you think this counts as a reliable source, please be my guest and take it to WP:RSN. Your lead is also highly POV and coat-tracked, as the allegations are forced right into the second sentence even before the election summary and results, which is completely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV for an election article. Furthermore, several opposition politicians' comments are there but strangely enough, there was nothing in the content with respect to Imran Khan or PTI's stance on the issue, and it has been purposely edited out which again, is not NPOV. You said Gahler mentioned nothing about corruption cases, which again is completely wrong. Please re-read the following which is quoted to the citation verbatim:
 * Many of our interlocutors acknowledged a systematic effort to undermine the former ruling party through cases of corruption, contempt of court and terrorist charges against its leaders and candidates," he continued. Despite legal provisions, he said: "We have concluded that there was a lack of equality of opportunity". “On election day, polling was assessed as well conducted and transparent,” Gahler said
 * I would strongly recommend that you refrain from further reverts, until we have sorted out these major problems. There is consistent source misrepresentation and POV editorialising as I have pointed out above.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As it wasn't discussed, I resorted the earlier version which is balanced, at-least for now. When you read the first paragraphs and you instantly get the idea..."oh ok, the elections were rigged", how this information can come first? Also, reading the lead, I find no useful informations, instead it details all the allegations and just that. Even the current version needs a lot of improvement. But it didn't included alleged (direct) names of agencies, and judicial bodies involved in elections, regardless of media has reported or not. This is just repetitive thing going on and no real information. I have suggestion for that how a lead should be written:


 * 1) The lead can be upto five paragraphs, there is no harm in it, if the content is overwhelming. The first two paragraphs should and must details all the lead parties information, how they become front runners for the elections and their election manifestos, policies and their image/conduct in media during elections.
 * 2) Third and fourth paragraph can details their election results, vote count in provinces, cities, polls and structure plus any information that gives the readers information who is leading and who is losing in a well written and balanced manner.
 * 3) Finally the fifth paragraph can contain information regarding any mishap, rigging issues, or any official reports that may opposition or loosing party accused anyone or any other official is being accused of rigging elections, directly involved with election results, violence, opposition reactions bearing references from both Pakistani and international medi.

This should be the structure of lead, with no wordings that may shows one inclination towards any party. If this continues I am afraid this will lead to edit warning and eventual sanction impose by AE, if we don't reach to consensus. Please refer neutrality in each edit and can take in consideration other election articles that fairly states the lead section. Nauriya, Let's talk - 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Thank you, and I whole heartedly agree. I would also recommend checking out the lead of United States elections, 2016, which is very succinct, summary-style and written neutrally, despite all the controversy of Russian interference etc.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I understand that there have been allegations of rigging in prior elections but there have not been so much reports of military, ISI and judiciary's involvement in pre-poll rigging. You need to keep pre-poll rigging separate from election day rigging. All the denials that we see coming from Asif Ghafoor are about election day rigging and even if he denies involvement in pre-poll rigging still there is no credence to it as that is his job to defend his institution and deny any allegations. Now coming to your point about allegations presented as facts, did you read all the sources (including Eurasia Review source), I do not mind if you want to take it to WP:RSN since you are objecting to its reliability, I believe you should take it since I am for its inclusion so it does not make sense for me to take it to the noticeboard. Furthermore, I do not have the allegation represented as fact "There have been reports suggesting" exactly means that there have been reports suggesting collusion between those institutions and it is true that there have been reports if you read all of the sources, for example read all of the sources in the lead. I mean just the source heading should be enough to convince anyone that these are not just the allegations and not just the allegations by PML (N) so just look at the headings for below sources, quoting the whole articles should not be necessary:


 * Nawaz Sharif verdict: Ahead of general elections, Pakistan Army exhibits super show of 'soft coup' to prop up extremist parties


 * Now from within that source above, see below text, this is no PML (N) alleging, this is what the source is saying: It is clear that what is in fact underway in Pakistan is the classic case of 'soft coup', a game perfected by the Pakistan Army through its control of the so-called independent judiciary. The Avenfield case and Sharif's disqualification makes clear an attempt at election engineering by the powerful military to enhance the fortunes of the PTI and all the other extremist political parties - Lashkar-e-Taiba supported Milli Muslim League (through Allaha-u-Akbar Tehreek), Tehreek Labbaik Pakistan and ultra-conservative Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, all of which have entered the electoral arena this year seeking to benefit from the discrediting of the PML-N and PPP, with adequate propping up by Rawalpindi.


 * Now the next source: Nawaz Sharif sentencing: More to the judgment than meets the eye


 * Now from within source and this is not PML (N) alleging either: Waiting in the wings to grab power is former cricketer Imran Khan who is close to the military establishment. and But the haste with which the accountability court acted and the absence of a fair trial showed that there was more to the judgment than meets the eye. and this is in context 😉 to elections, and further it says For his main political opponent, Imran Khan, it is virtually a fixed match. The deep state has indeed pulled out all stops to ease the path for him in the polls. To add to the conviction of Nawaz, there have been the defections that were forced through intimidation, the imprisonment and disqualification of top PML-N leaders, the dubious role of the military and the judiciary. On top of it, the media has been browbeaten nice and proper to oppose Nawaz. It is clearly a battle loaded against the former prime minister. and this is no PML (N) alleging, this is what the source is saying, and it continues on to say there is a question mark over the fairness of the poll. and he has been hounded and harassed primarily because of his outspokenness and failure to kowtow to powerful forces.


 * Next: The End of Democracy or a New Resurgence in Pakistan?


 * The whole piece is worth reading about how military and ISI are trying to manipulate the elections.


 * Next: A manipulated outcome


 * Within source, PML (N) is not saying this either: Pakistan may be headed towards an election that is compromised and In fact, one of the main reasons being cited for delaying the elections is that despite all the 'engineering' by the powers-that-be, the PTI has not made much of a dent in the PML-N vote bank in Punjab. and The military establishment is not happy with the Sharif family; therefore, neither is the judiciary and If the elections are held on time, there are chances of some sort of manipulation. We have already seen pre-poll rigging in order to defeat the PML-N.


 * Next: The assault on Pakistan media ahead of vote


 * Within source, remember, assault on media ahead of vote is a type of pre-poll rigging in itself: The media and some political parties are being micromanaged by an establishment alliance of the army and the judiciary, according to journalists and Meanwhile, other media personalities have faced kidnappings, arrests and physical abuse by mysterious hooded men who no journalist dare name - but every journalist in the country is convinced belong to the military intelligence agencies. and Last year, the largest Urdu-language newspaper Jang and its sister TV news channel Geo were subjected to such massive financial pressures and intimidation that they could not pay their staff for three months. Unlike Dawn, their senior editors appear to have reached some kind of compromise with the military. and Much of the micromanagement that is going on in the elections has the same mysterious and unknown quality as to who is conducting it and why it is happening.


 * Next: Pakistanis tiring of elections manipulated by establishment


 * From within source, no alleging by PML (N): It is almost as if all the institutions in Pakistan are working together to make sure that the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) does not come to power again as a result of the next general election. and If this is not enough, the deployment of more than 350,000 army personnel on polling day says it all. Never in the recent history of Pakistan has the army been deployed in such a large number inside and out of the polling booths. and The interesting thing about all this drama is that this time the military establishment has been given a very tough time from the resilient PML-N and While PML-N is all set to win the elections and form a government, on the other hand, the military and judiciary alliance is making sure that the party does not come to power again. No one could have ever imagined that the judiciary and NAB would sink to such low level that they will use reference of poetry and fictional novels instead of the legal references in their verdicts to victimize PML-N and to help the military establishment disqualify PML-N candidates. The mainstream media are not giving prior coverage to the resilient and anti-establishment leaders of PML-N. and With all the institutions busy serving the military establishment's purpose, Sharif is pinning all his hopes on his vote bank in Punjab. If the voters in Punjab turn out in very large numbers and the turnout in the elections is around 55-60%, Sharif despite being deprived of a level playing field will win the game. On the other hand, if after managing the political process and with the highest possible level of pre-poll rigging the military establishment tries to change the results on election day, it will lead to chaos in the country. and The powerful military establishment that for the past 10 years has operated from behind the scenes by dictating elected governments may be able to get the desired results in the election and remaining of the whole article is worth reading, it's all about military and judiciary 's joint attempts to manipulate the elections.


 * Next source: Patronage and power plays in Pakistan's electoral politics


 * From within source and no alleging by PML (N): On 6 June 2018, Gul Bukhari, a journalist known for her sympathy with the incumbent Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N) party, was picked up by Pakistan's intelligence agencies for a few hours before being released. Such incidents not only increase fear, but make people sceptical about the fairness of the electoral process. and rest of the whole article is an indictment of military, ISI and judiciary's involvement in pre-poll rigging.


 * Next source: Pakistan: General Elections Subverted By Army-Judiciary Nexus - Analysis


 * From within source and I will only include the part about Justice Saqib Nisar's collusion with military and ISI: Once again a Chief Justice of Pakistan Supreme Court has colluded with the Pakistan military hierarchy to impede the emergence of purist PM Nawaz in Pakistan as against Pakistan Army's persistent credo that Pakistan needs "Guided Democracy". so it is okay if you want to include his resolve to investigate Justice Siddiqui's allegations but it will be unfair to the reader of this encyclopedia not to mention that he himself is a protégé of military and ISI so folks know who is investigating the allegations against these two bodies.


 * Now, all these sources are written by independent journalists with no affiliation to PML (N) so it is kind of unfair to say that these allegations were promulgated by that party, yes we can mention that PML (N) alleged the same which I already did. As to why these allegations are above the election results in the lead, it is because the lead is in chronological order, pre-poll rigging allegations came before the elections came so it is fair enough to include them before the election results.


 * So, my friends, the whole free world is calling them out, it's time that we should call them out on Wikipedia, look Wikipedia was not here when they did the debacles with democracy in Pakistan in the past, this is time to speak out because history is being written now. This is time to say what is right and write what is right. I do not mind Imran Khan coming into power, he might prove great for Pakistan but all the facets of how he came into power needs to be told.
 * Note: This comment was in process of compilation when Nauriya wrote their comment, so yes, if the elections are rigged then lead needs to mention it. We do not subscribe to how other pages are written, as per WP:LEAD, it must tell the whole story of the article. If you folks keep changing this then we can go to WP:DRN. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 15:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Before we get anywhere else, please note that your sources above are linked to opinion pieces. Please note that opinion articles are not a reliable source, or an appropriate substitute to cite what is taken as fact or evidence. Once you are able to distinguish between the two, only then can we move forward. If your entire argument is going to rest on allegations and op-eds, then you are already skating on thin ice. There is no reason why we should provide WP:UNDUE weight to speculation, opinions or unverified conspiracy theories until we have evidence and strong mainstream views. That's a basic sourcing requirement. So far, all we have seen are allegations only so we can't really go beyond that point and coat-track this article. Regards,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all of them are opinion pieces and the ones which are, those are written by independent journalists with no affiliation to PML (N) but you are welcomed to take them to WP:RSN as you are the one who is questioning their reliability! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 17:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please adjust the request of this issue in a right place. You have listed in a closed discussion session template. Please list the discussion in its right place. Nauriya, Let's talk - 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

Reactions
I think someone should add a reactions section like there is for the other elections. It should have the domestic, economic and international sections in it. I would do it myself but I'm not that good at editing Wikipedia The Great Fountain of Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Reactions
Imran khan formed government on August 11 after taking the prime minister oath  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DA9:8B00:958B:7433:399C:ED86 (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * August 11 is in the future. Also PTI has not formed govt yet: talks are ongoing   маsтегрна  таLк  11:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Lack of Judgement
Imran khan Present Chairman of PTI was once considered to be play boy in London night clubs has turn to be pious from a decade.He forms Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf in 1996.He struggled for about 22 years and finally he is expected to be next prime minister of Pakistan.in the recent elections of 2018 false allegations were made upon several security departments for their involvement in general elections for succeeding Imran khan.Majority of Pakistanis Denied the rigging allegations.Majority of Parties including PML(N),MMA and few others major leaders does not secure their seats and expected to be remain jobless for the next five years.MMA is a religious party but have no such appearance of Religion Haseeb ul hasan (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is all POV. Wikipedia strives to be neutral маsтегрна  таLк  09:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Seat change
Hi. Whoever added this seat change thingy, I don’t think that the seat change is right. If it right, kindly explain why it is right, so I can have a deeper understanding to this. Thanks! Wbhai89 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Basically, the seat change was from the previous directly elected seats rather than total seats, which is why it might have seemed confusing. Don’t worry, it has been removed now. маsтегрна  таLк  09:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

= pti 125 seats now ===

Nope. They were elected on 116 seats. 125 is including independents, which were NOT elected on the PTI ticket. Also finding it strange how you added a title without any description? маsтегрна таLк  14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

= Election commission of Pakistan verdict not allowed to be included? ===
 * You removed my piece of ECP verdict :

However, Election commission of Pakistan (ECP) also responded to these allegations strongly, and dubbed elections as free and fair. ECP strong rejected any allegations of rigging in elections, and invited all political parties to provided specific proves of incidents. In order to negotiate complaints during elections processing, ECP took following actions:
 * All form 45 were decided to published on ECP's website to ensure transparency.
 * Announced the recount of votes in several consistencies across Pakistan to satisfy complaints over results.

You commented and i quote "his is not encyclopedic, what do you expect the body which conducted the election to say, would they accept that the election they conducted were rigged"

I could argue that what could you expect from parties who lost the elections? In history of Pakistan no one accepts defeat, and always rigging allegations are posed to save the politics. If you Election day rigging allegations from opposition parties, whats wrong to mention the official version of body conducting the elections, its "Wikipedia:Point of view" policy what states that both versions should be given space? The aftermath of the events dictates that once the rigging allegations were raised, the subsection must include the actions following allegations? Kindly give your point of view?

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know a lot more about Wikipedia editing than a normal 295 edits user would know but that being aside, I maintain that every reader should expect that ECP would say that they conducted free and fair elections, furthermore ECP's statement does not address the allegation, the allegation is that the form 45 is supposed to filled and prepared in front of political agents and then signed by them, signing empty form or not having agents present when filling cannot be addressed by publishing them on website later on. In any case those forms were to be published on the website, act of publishing does not address earlier irregularities and making it appear that it does, does not serve the reader. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 03:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Form 45 not being filled and signed infront of agents and signed is also an allegation, it is not a proven fact. Non of the proves have been provided by any party so far. Even if we accept the aforesaid, what ever measures are taken by ECP we are quoting them as it is, no one is saying that publishing online form will solve the any problem. In the same way every reader will expect that every party who lose his seat hardly accepts defeat , always a hue and cry of rigging are raised. We can't leave information on the assumption that reader "would know" , ofcourse if he comes to some page , he is reading some information in flow, and opinions from both sides should be reflected , otherwise , it sounds like rigging is done ,and ECP had no position on it.

The point is balance of opinion, if rigging allegations of contestants are given, the official verdict against it should also be posted. Also measures taken as aftermath should go along. Need your opinion on balance of opinion and views?

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine to include ECP's version if it is written in a concise prose without grammar errors. Also, I do not agree with your changes on pre-election and election day violence sections. I see your attempts on toning down any negativity regarding the election process but we cannot mask words like "violence" with terms like "law and order", English speaking world calls these incidents "violence" and how can you make a mockery of all these incidents by saying in the beginning of the section that no major incident happened, hundreds of people got killed in the whole process some of them being candidates and you are trying to tone down and mask all this under umbrella terms such as "law and order" and "no major incident happened". Also, this needs to go back to a concise prose instead of the listicle created by you. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 10:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

172 seats needed for majority
Hi. I was looking into this website and saw that it was written 172 seats needed for majority. However, I checked other sources and news outlets, and all of them have said 137 seats are needed for a majority. This is the only source that says 172 seats needed for majority. If possible, please fix this mistake, or, if it’s correct, please explain it to me so I should have more understanding about the system. Thanks!!! Wbhai89 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 137 is a majority out of 272 general seats. There are an additional 70 reserved seats up for election: 60 for women and 10 for minorities. These are elected as a proportion of the general seats. For example, if a party gets 50% of the general seats they should get 50% of the minority seats. The total membership of the national assembly including reserved seats is 342. When media outlets say 137, they are partially correct because 137 is a majority of the general seats, and the reserved seats are allocated proportionally to the general seats so if you have a majority of general you seats you will have a majority of the reserved seats and therefore you will have a majority in the entire house. In summary, 172 is the figure for the entire national assembly while 137 is the figure for the directly elected general seats which pakistanis vote for. маsтегрна  таLк  22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The 137 number is being quoted everywhere as an intermediate majority number (General Seats) which then determines the number of reserved seats a party will get to make a Majority (atleast 172) in the National Assembly. Jibran1998 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Reserved seats
The reserved seat allocation has been announced. However, the problem is that the PTI number stands at 158 which is inclusive of the independent members that have joined. In the previous election we had the number of 166 for pmln without independents and 188 for pmln with independents. How do we calculate the number of PTI seats without indepdents? маsтегрна таLк  18:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PTI won 116 seats + 33 reserved + 9 independents. --Saqib (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - the formula being used to calculate minimum threshold is NA seats in province/total reserved seats in province (women) and total NA seats/total reserved seats (minority). In Punjab, 2 reserved seats are not filled because 7 independent MNAs from the province are still undecided (along with the two constituencies where elections were postponed). To help clear things up, look at this womens' seat calculation for Punjab. - Wiki.0hlic   (talk)  19:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * if there are still 7 undecided then how are news channels claiming that the ECP has declared that 9/13 independents have joined PTI? маsтегрна  таLк  20:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you must have had misread the document. This document which was recently uploaded on the ECP website claims that all 7 Independent candidates from punjab have joined PTI. Anyway, i will use their calculation method to calculate a total for PTI before independents joining, if that is ok with the rest of you. маsтегрна  таLк  22:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Independents
Please do not include independents in final tally of party seats as those are not part of the election results thus do not belong in this page under these parties, those people joined the parties after winning the election. I am in favor of listing them as part of their respective parties on List of members of the 15th National Assembly of Pakistan but for that we will have to change all the old lists as well. I think these lists should be reflective of actual house instead of how these people won the election but the election page should be reflective of the actual election result. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 22:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll update the list of incumbent MNAs once we know for sure who joined which party. There's still some confusion because earlier Ali Mohammad Mahar had reportedly joined PTI but latest news reports suggest otherwise, so lets wait for the official confirmation. Btw, which old lists are you talking about here? --Saqib (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not in favour of adding independents. I was infact asking for how to calculate the PTI total without independents. Nobody listened, and left pmln without independents in 2013 while adding independents to pti in 2018, which is why I added independents to the 2013 tally. If anyone can calculate pti total without independents then go ahead. маsтегрна  таLк  08:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For example, List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan still have some independents listed, I am wondering they never joined any party? <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 09:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the independent MP's you see on List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan opted to remain independent. --Saqib (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated the list of incumbent MNAs, please cross check.--Saqib (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I trust you wholeheartedly! <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 10:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected this article and restored the 2013 one to the original version showing the seats won by candidates as they were listed. The change made to the 2013 results table was problematic as there was a note in the table explaining that the independents had subsequently joined the PML(N). Number  5  7  12:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Can the seat distribution diagram be please shifted to the side-panel of the page? It would not only make things easier to read but also standardize this election with the pages of previous ones.

Right now, the diagram is attached to a table somewhere at the end of the article with the seats of all parties.

Its merely a "quality of life" request. Thank you.

~ Helper 47 Helper47 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Imran Khan Official Portrait.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PM Imran Khan.png