Talk:Imran Khan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
• *Revision as of 21:14, 2 July 2026 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&oldid=1362264479)edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&action=edit&oldid=1362264479)**
WikiEnthusiast1001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiEnthusiast1001&action=edit&redlink=1)
(talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEnthusiast1001) | contribs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WikiEnthusiast1001))
Extended confirmed users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extended_confirmed_editors)
4,982 edits
Tag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Tags): Reply (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:DiscussionTools)
← Previous edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=1362264479)Latest revision as of 13:49, 3 July 2026 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&oldid=1362367657)edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&action=edit)undo (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&action=edit&undoafter=1362264479&undo=1362367657)
SheriffIsInTown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown)
(talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | contribs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SheriffIsInTown))
Autopatrolled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autopatrolled), Extended confirmed users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extended_confirmed_editors), Pending changes reviewers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes), Rollbackers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback)
64,923 edits
Tag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Tags): Reply (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:DiscussionTools)
Line 89:Line 89:
::::::::If you think any of those factual claims are wrong, point out which ones and provide evidence. But dismissing the entire article because the author is "non-notable" is silly and ignores the substance of what he has written.::::::::If you think any of those factual claims are wrong, point out which ones and provide evidence. But dismissing the entire article because the author is "non-notable" is silly and ignores the substance of what he has written.
::::::::By your standard, policy papers/academic articles/books by experts who aren't famous would have to be dismissed as well. The strength of a source comes from the evidence it presents and whether its factual claims are able to withstand scrutiny... NOT from whether the author is a household name. [[User:WikiEnthusiast1001|WikiEnthusiast1001]] ([[User talk:WikiEnthusiast1001|talk]]) 21:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)::::::::By your standard, policy papers/academic articles/books by experts who aren't famous would have to be dismissed as well. The strength of a source comes from the evidence it presents and whether its factual claims are able to withstand scrutiny... NOT from whether the author is a household name. [[User:WikiEnthusiast1001|WikiEnthusiast1001]] ([[User talk:WikiEnthusiast1001|talk]]) 21:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::We need to draw a line somewhere when an article is already sufficiently lengthy. A reasonable question is, if the author of an opinion piece is not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, why should their opinion be considered important enough to include in another Wikipedia article? This does not apply to scholarly work. My question is why we need to include the opinions of Samiuddin and Perez-Rocha in this article. If we include those, where do we stop? I can provide hundreds of opinions expressed about this individual, would we include all of them? What distinguishes these two individuals from the many others who have expressed opinions about Khan? And what about the opinions of non-notable figures that were previously removed in order to reduce article length and address the excessive-length concerns? Should those opinions be restored as well? If we take that approach, the article could easily grow back to 17,000 words, undoing the work that was done to remove the overly lengthy tag. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|Sheriff]] | [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|☎ 911]] | 13:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
•
Latest revision as of 13:49, 3 July 2026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Symbol_oppose_vote.svgImran Khan was a _Social sciences and society good articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and\society) nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria) at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations). Editors may also seek a reassessment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment) of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globe_current.svgNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) in the _"In the news (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:In_the\news)" column on July 29, 2018 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/852575431), and February 1, 2024 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1201942906).
Current status: Former good article nominee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ballot_box_current.svgThis article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel). If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard).This page is about a politician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician) who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) editing, talk-page trolling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trolling), and simple vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism).If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Commons-emblem-hand.svgWarning: active arbitration remedies
• *The contentious topics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics) procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia) (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups**.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
• This page is protected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy). You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users) account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days).
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars), any expected standards of behaviour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette), or any normal editorial process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies) may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.
Article size and trimming or splitting
[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&action=edit§ion=1)]
A concern about article size keeps appearing in discussions on this talk page. We should discuss what the issue is and how to resolve it. The current readable prose size is 10349 words. Policy at WP:LENGTH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LENGTH) says, when an article's size is over 9,000 words, the article "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". So, to start the discussion, are there any parts of the page that can be trimmed or split into new or existing articles? Burrobert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burrobert&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burrobert)) 14:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-Burrobert-20260529143500-Article_size_and_trimming_or_splitting)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]
It has been a few weeks and no one has commented. Should I make some suggestions about trimming the article's content? Burrobert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burrobert&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burrobert)) 16:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-Burrobert-20260612164000-Burrobert-20260529143500)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]No further trimming is needed at this time. **Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 16:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260612165300-Burrobert-20260612164000)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]@Burrobert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burrobert&action=edit&redlink=1) Yes please make some suggestions. WikiEnthusiast1001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiEnthusiast1001&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEnthusiast1001)) 19:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260612195200-Burrobert-20260612164000)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]I will start with three suggestions:
• Let's remove the sentence: "In August 2005, Declan Walsh called him a "miserable politician", saying "Khan's ideas and affiliations since entering politics in 1996 have swerved and skidded like a rickshaw in a rainshower... He preaches democracy one day but gives a vote to reactionary mullahs the next." It is largely meaningless and partly contradictory - isn't giving votes to people a sign of democracy?
• Let's remove the section "Misogynistic remark" and put a one sentence summary in the general "Post-premiership" section.
• Let's remove the section "University of Oxford Chancellor candidacy". If warranted, we can put a one sentence summary in the general "Post-premiership" section. We only need to say Zulfi Bukhari lodged an application for him and it was rejected.
Burrobert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burrobert&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burrobert)) 15:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-Burrobert-20260623153100-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260612195200)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]Thank you. I agree with and support all three of your proposed suggestions. WikiEnthusiast1001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiEnthusiast1001&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEnthusiast1001)) 15:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260630153200-Burrobert-20260623153100)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]I do not agree with any of your suggestions and do not think the article needs any further trimming. I also see this as an attempt to remove content that reflects negatively on the subject. First, why pick and choose only one opinion to remove while keeping all the others? Second, the section heading has already been removed, and the content about his remark is merely a summary. His run for chancellor was significant, and we only include the essential facts: that he ran, that his candidacy was rejected by university officials, and why it was rejected. **Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 00:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260701004700-Burrobert-20260623153100)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]
This is a problematic section. Firstly, why are we devoting a whole section to three sentences about a remark made by the Lion of Lahore? This form of highlighting is inappropriate. If included in Immi's bio, it would be more neutral to include it in a general "Post-premiership" section. Secondly, if for some reason we do give these three sentences a section of their own, why are we using a title that borders on breaching the care we should have when dealing with a WP:BLP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP). Burrobert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burrobert&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burrobert)) 15:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-Burrobert-20260623151500-Remark_about_Maryam_Nawaz)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]
The reason this content has its own section is that it is topically distinct from both the material above and below it. The preceding section discusses Khan repeating his allegation of U.S. involvement, followed by his statement that the issue is now behind him, and then his remarks about the kind of Pakistan he wishes to lead. It would be inappropriate to move directly from that discussion into a misogynistic remark without a clear separation, as the subject matter changes significantly. Likewise, the section that follows addresses his legal matters, which is a completely different topic from the remark in question. Sections exist precisely to provide this kind of topical separation. Some sections naturally contain more content than others; it is not unusual for Wikipedia articles to include sections even shorter than this one. Regarding the section title, it is based on the language used in reliable sources. Those sources describe the remark as misogynistic, and Wikipedia should reflect the terminology used by sources. The title therefore explains why this specific remark is included among many he may have made and why it is notable enough to warrant coverage. There is nothing inappropriate about describing the content in terms consistent with the sources, call a spade a spade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPADE). Do you have any source that disputes the characterization of the remark as misogynistic? **Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 17:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260623175000-Burrobert-20260623151500)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]It would be easy to place the incident in the general "Post-premiership" section. Consider the section on "Foreign Policy", for example. It includes separate paragraphs on a number of different issues. See also MOS:SUBSECTION (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:SUBSECTION): "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings". Burrobert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burrobert&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burrobert)) 09:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-Burrobert-20260624093900-SheriffIsInTown-20260623175000)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]
@Umais Bin Sajjad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Umais_Bin_Sajjad) and SheriffIsInTown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown): Hi, hope you are doing well. Which YT sources were questionable? M. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M.Billoo2000#top)Billoo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:M.Billoo2000)11:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-M.Billoo2000-20260628114400-YouTube_source)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]
@User:SheriffIsInTown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) What issue do you have with my recent edits? WikiEnthusiast1001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiEnthusiast1001&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEnthusiast1001)) 15:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260630153000-Additions)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]
Why don't you start by explaining the contradiction? Above, you are supporting trimming information from the article that reflects negatively on the subject, yet at the same time you are trying to add three paragraphs consisting of opinions rather than facts. Two of those opinions are attributed to non-notable individuals, while one is attributed to Hashmi. Why should we include what Hashmi is saying about Khan in 2026? Hashmi is one of hundreds of politicians in Pakistan. Are we going to include everything that every politician says about Khan? **Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 01:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260701012100-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260630153000)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]It isn't being trimmed because it's negative, it's being trimmed because it's contradictory, as Burrobert explained. You seem comfortable accepting opinions from random professors at SUNY or LUMs, but when I cite an article from The Guardian, you suddenly have an issue with the source. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't? Do you own this page?As I explained in my edit summary, it is necessary to include Hashmi's comments made in 2026, because he now says Khan "might have" compromised, in contrast to his earlier claim in which he said with full certainty that Khan "conspired" with "disgruntled elements in the army." WikiEnthusiast1001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiEnthusiast1001&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEnthusiast1001)) 02:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260702023300-SheriffIsInTown-20260701012100)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]All three pieces chosen to be removed portray the subject negatively, while all three pieces you are trying to add portray the subject positively. I do not think that is a coincidence; there appears to be a coordinated effort to WP:CENSOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CENSOR). The statement is not contradictory; it is from a notable journalist (Declan Walsh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Walsh_(journalist))) and has been in the article for quite a long time. Any attempt to remove it would require consensus. What you are trying to add is attributed to non-notables; Osman Samiuddin and Manuel Pérez-Rocha are not notable. I disagree that Hashmi is uncertain now. He is simply drawing a comparison between Khan compromising with the military in 2018 and not compromising now. That is the proper way to express such a comparison: Khan may have compromised then, but he has nothing to gain now. He is basically portraying Khan as an opportunist by saying that. In other words, when it suited him, he compromised, but he has nothing to gain now, so he will not compromise. I do not think it is necessary to include this statement; otherwise, where do we stop? Next, a statement from Nawaz Sharif, one from Maryam, one from Bilawal, and one from Zardari? I hope you would not object to including statements from other politicians regarding Khan as well. Also, the article is at its maximum length, which could be cited as another reason not to include any further opinions. This goes contrary to the effort of trimming that you are supporting above. If we want to trim the article, then why is it necessary to include three unnecessary opinions? Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 14:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260702143700-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260702023300)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]
• Regarding the quote from Declan Walsh, it's a mixture of hyperbole ("swerved and skidded like a rickshaw in a rainshower") and contradiction. It would be interesting to learn why you think the last part of the statement is not contradictory. It would also be useful to know what Walsh is talking about since we don't mention anything about giving votes to mullahs anywhere else, as far as I can tell. We should avoid baffling the reader, if possible.
• As mentioned previously, there is no "maximum length" for an article. Article length should not be used as an excuse for excluding content.
• Regarding the positive/negative allegation, I won't accuse you of trying to maintain negative content and exclude positive content, as it is necessary to assume good faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF).
• BLP's are living organisms. New content will need to be added when appropriate and out-dated content will need to be removed. There will generally never be a final unchanging version of a BLP. _The Economist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\Economist) published an interesting article a few days ago about the relationship between Imran and the dictator-for-life Asim Munir.[[1]](https://www.economist.com/asia/2026/07/02/pakistans-army-chief-battles-with-its-imprisoned-ex-prime-minister) It contains some statements that could be used to refresh the article. It says Khan "is now serving a 14-year prison sentence on a trumped-up corruption charge. Behind bars, rather than dealing with tricky neighbours and IMF loans, his popularity has soared". It describes Munir as "steely and scheming" and says he and Khan are "locked in a battle of nerves". It says Khan's "popularity is an awkward problem for a regime that lacks legitimacy. Taking him for hospital tests in the dead of night suggests the government is aware of his appeal. Keeping Mr Khan locked up may be the safest option for now. But it is not without risks, particularly if his health worsens or public dissatisfaction grows".
Burrobert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Burrobert&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burrobert)) 16:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-Burrobert-20260702164100-SheriffIsInTown-20260702143700)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]Public image section contains a lot of hyperbole, and it is okay for an opinion of a notable to contain hyperbole and even contradiction. I am okay with moving Declan Walsh's opinion to the Public image section where it was before an overly enthusiastic editor moved it to career section, but not in favor of removing it. While there is no maximum length for an article, there is an ideal length mentioned in the guidelines, and guidelines are there to be followed, not ignored. It is perfectly fine to use that as a reason to decide, while expanding the article, what to include and what not to include, and whether to keep bloating the article with opinions or just stick to facts. I do not think we should keep including opinions, specifically from authors who are not even notable. BLPs are living organisms. New content will need to be added when appropriate, fine with that statement when it comes to facts, but not with opinions. **Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 17:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260702170200-Burrobert-20260702164100)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]Ah yes. But Professor Christopher Clary, Professor Mohammad Waseem, and author Dinkar Prakash Srivastava are all very notable... WikiEnthusiast1001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiEnthusiast1001&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEnthusiast1001)) 17:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260702172900-SheriffIsInTown-20260702170200)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]Those are not opinion pieces, those are scholarly sources. Books published by Oxford University Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press) and Bloomsbury Publishing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsbury_Publishing) are considered scholarly sources. Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 17:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260702174900-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260702172900)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]Setting The Guardian article aside, I don't think "non-notable author" is a meaningful reason to dismiss a source.The relevant questions are whether the author has expertise, whether the publication has editorial standards, and if the article's claims can be independently verified.Manuel Pérez-Rocha is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Policy_Studies), not some random commentator. He has spent years researching international trade and investment policy, mainly Investor–state dispute settlements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor%E2%80%93state_dispute_settlement) (ISDS). That doesn't make him automatically right BUT it does mean his work should be evaluated on its merits.More importantly, the article isn't just Perez-Rocha expressing his opinions. He makes factual claims that can be independently verified such as Pakistan's dispute over the Reko Diq project, the ICSID arbitration award, and Khan's government's efforts to terminate bilateral investment treaties (here (https://tribune.com.pk/story/2313937/pakistan-to-terminate-23-bilateral-investment-treaties), here (https://aftinet.org.au/node/2044), and here (https://fpif.org/one-step-forward-two-steps-back-in-the-struggle-against-anti-democratic-corporate-trade-rules/)). These can be easily verified through other independent sources (https://www.iisd.org/itn/2021/10/07/pakistan-terminates-23-bits/).If you think any of those factual claims are wrong, point out which ones and provide evidence. But dismissing the entire article because the author is "non-notable" is silly and ignores the substance of what he has written.By your standard, policy papers/academic articles/books by experts who aren't famous would have to be dismissed as well. The strength of a source comes from the evidence it presents and whether its factual claims are able to withstand scrutiny... NOT from whether the author is a household name. WikiEnthusiast1001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiEnthusiast1001&action=edit&redlink=1) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiEnthusiast1001)) 21:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260702211400-SheriffIsInTown-20260702174900)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]We need to draw a line somewhere when an article is already sufficiently lengthy. A reasonable question is, if the author of an opinion piece is not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, why should their opinion be considered important enough to include in another Wikipedia article? This does not apply to scholarly work. My question is why we need to include the opinions of Samiuddin and Perez-Rocha in this article. If we include those, where do we stop? I can provide hundreds of opinions expressed about this individual, would we include all of them? What distinguishes these two individuals from the many others who have expressed opinions about Khan? And what about the opinions of non-notable figures that were previously removed in order to reduce article length and address the excessive-length concerns? Should those opinions be restored as well? If we take that approach, the article could easily grow back to 17,000 words, undoing the work that was done to remove the overly lengthy tag. Sh****eri****ff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown) | ☎ 911** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriffIsInTown) | 13:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#c-SheriffIsInTown-20260703134900-WikiEnthusiast1001-20260702211400)[reply (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imran_Khan&diff=1362367657&oldid=1362264479)]