Talk:Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election

Duplication
Before moving material from the main election page, please check if the information is already mention on this page, to avoid redundancy. Saqib (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Got it. Ainty Painty (talk) 15:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Most rigged elections
The most rigged election statement is mentioned by not just one source but all the three sources cited. France24 called it most rigged Al Jazeera called it most unfree while Washington Post called it least credible. So these sources used different wording but all of them meant the same thing. Muneebll (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For all it’s worth, French 24 reports that social media users are dubbing it the "most rigged" election, while Al Jazeera cites some analysts labeling the upcoming election as potentially "the most unfree." The Washington Post article is an opinion piece and cannot be referenced unless directly attributed. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 15:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I previously held a different stance, I must agree with Sheriff on this. I believe this edit was more appropriate and likely acceptable. BTW some sources [need to find URL's] directly referred to the election "controversial". --Saqib (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit you're referring to is repetition of what is already mentioned in first para of lead; international media's reaction and establishment's rigging in favour of Nawaz Sharif, so it makes the lead undue. It would be better if the second para is brought down in International analysis as introductory para for that section. Muneebll (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You reverted my edit calling it misquoting on my part in your edit summary but actually you're misquoting the sources. France 24 article called it most rigged referring to this TIME's article which called elections brazenly rigged, social media users called it "generals' election" in that article. Al Jazeera's article cited some analysts for most unfree which is fair enough to use here. Washington Post's article calling elections least credible although is an opinion piece but is authored by its editorial board and not some independent individual. Muneebll (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're correct regarding French 24, but it's just one media outlet. Consider Al Jazeera's statement: "some analysts believe the upcoming vote might be among the most unfree yet." They made this assertion before the election, discussing its potentiality. Therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. I referred the WP source to WP:RSN and their main recommendation was to use it with direct attribution. Hence, I disagree with your assertion that we should include this in the lead solely because one media outlet supports the claim. Additionally, if we include it in the article body, we must provide direct attribution since it's only one source. We can't broadly claim that international media outlets are labeling it as "most rigged." Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 16:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, highlighting it in the lead section as the "most rigged" election based on a single reference would be unfair. While rigging did occur, feel free to mention it in the body [incase if its not yet] but let's avoid overstatement in the lead, at the minimum. --Saqib (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You both are insisting on presenting it as one source that says it but I have presented four sources for most rigged statement. What could be the best word you think can be used to describe the four international media outlets calling elections, most rigged, most unfree, least credible and brazenly rigged? Muneebll (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now even Pildat has also termed it so having the lowest fairness score among recent elections. Muneebll (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I dissected all four of your sources in one of my previous comments. Did you not read it or read it but decided not to hear it? PILDAT report states "lowest fairness score since 2013", how does it make it most rigged in history of Pakistan? <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; 04:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your dissection of sources is just a rhetorical attempt to censor information covered by various reliable sources. Rigging in Elections is not just what happens post-elections, it involves pre-poll rigging as well to which Al Jazeera and Time's article referred. About Washington Post article, you were told at RSN that newspaper associated opinions like this one could be considered reliable and furthermore that there are plenty of sources for same. Muneebll (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "If you cannot convince'em, accuse'em of something," no one is trying to censor here rather the objections were valid and were explained to you in detail. <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; 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Change of wording under Disinformation section
@Titan2456 Your changes to the disinformation section are nonsensical at best. Firstly, you are adding unsourced text. Secondly, the disinformation campaign was not about claims but rather about international media falsely reporting that PTI had won 150 seats in official results, which no international media actually claimed. If your English comprehension is lacking, you should reconsider editing English Wikipedia, as a basic understanding of the language is essential. Thirdly, repeatedly using the word "alleged" in a single sentence is unnecessary. It can't be called "alleged" if it is described as a fact. You can check Imran's Twitter timeline for evidence of video sharing, which qualifies as factual, not alleged. <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; 16:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How do you know for sure the video was fabricated? Titan2456 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * “Allegedly sharing a false video” as I wrote would imply the video is allegedly false, and not that the video was allegedly shared. Titan2456 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Form 45 v Form 47 language
@Titan2456 I did not rub anything on your face but you need to understand where I am coming from, anything negative about PTI, you just rush to add word "allege" to everything but anything which favors PTI, you add that content without using word "allege" anywhere hence my claims about your biased editing behavior. This specific edit about form 45 v form 47, the source use the wording He (Abbasi) questioned validity of the election results, noting that Form-47 was prepared before Form-45, revealing discrepancies in both forms, not the wording added by you, no where it states "Form 47s carry false results". <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; 03:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The best solution to this issue is to return to the status quo before this conflict started, we should remove the alleged I added, and the alleged you added, though the maps should be kept. Titan2456 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)