Talk:Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election

Duplication

@Ainty Painty: 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

@SheriffIsInTown: 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 | ☎ 911 | 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 | ☎ 911 | 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? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 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. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 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". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 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)

Shehbaz Sharif

@SheriffIsInTown How exactly is Shehbaz Sharif irrelevant to this article, he was the one who won the elections which were marred by the vote rigging allegations. Titan2456 (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

These are the allegations as the article is titled, including this template reflects POV. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the allegations are about him, hence the template. Titan2456 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the template primarily reflects a statement of fact, making its inclusion in an article documenting allegations contrary to NPOV policy. Does the article specify Shehbaz Sharif’s involvement in the rigging and his role in it? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

- Which NPOV policy?

- Yes the article does.

- He is literally the one who is facing the allegations. Titan2456 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Show me the sources where he is linked to the allegations personally, elections happened under Kakar caretaker government not under his administration and as a matter of fact you are violating WP:BLP in addition to WP:NPOV. If you do not have a better argument, I will take this matter to an appropriate forum. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/14/mandate-thieves-new-pakistan-government-takes-shape-amid-slew-of-jabs Titan2456 (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The source does not provide any evidence of Shehbaz Sharif’s involvement in rigging the elections. It merely reiterates PTI’s allegations. Therefore, in my opinion, adding this ‘in your face’ template to an article that only documents the allegations would breach both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Additionally, you should not restore a template that has been removed by an IP address and myself unless there is a clear consensus to include it. Replying to the comment does not mean that you have consensus to include the template. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD, it is a bold edit to remove this template which has existed with consensus for a while now, the process is to keep it until consensus is reached to remove it, if you keep removing it you are edit warring. It seems WP:CPUSH to remove it, as the source clearly indicates that Shehbaz is facing the allegations. It is very much common sense that since Shehbaz officially won the elections, and he is facing these rigging allegations, he would be included in it, but heres another source. Titan2456 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

IPs are considered editors, it was removed by an IP and then by me as well so by that sense you are edit-warring by restoring it again and again. Moreover, you mentioned Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election at ANI, there is no such Joe Biden or Donald Trump sidebar template on that article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a Joe Biden template there at the bottom of the page, and there is an infobox anyways. The template should be kept as it is an important aspect of Shehbaz’s premiership. This page was linked to Shehbaz Sharif’s sidebar before it was cleaned up as part of an infobox cleanup. Similar pages like Operation Azm-e-Istehkam have the sidebar as well. Titan2456 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot apply Operation Azm-e-Istehkam example here and template at the bottom of page has totally different visibility than the sidebar template. How about removing this template and following the example of Joe Biden template? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What is wrong with visibility, why would you want Shehbaz Sharif to not be seen on a page that is about rigging allegations against him? Why would you want to hide that? The topics linked in the sidebar have it, Operation Azm-e-Istehkam is a very comparable example. Editor 37.245.76.171 has removed the allegations of rigging link from the sidebar, which I would contest as Shehbaz is the one facing the allegations in the first place. Titan2456 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I was explaining the distinction between the Joe Biden template at the bottom of an article and the sidebar template you’re trying to place here. Why is the Joe Biden template placed at the bottom, and why do you want a sidebar template in this case? If needed, we could add a comparable Shehbaz Sharif template at the bottom of the article. Why insist on using a sidebar template? There is a significant difference between allegations and proven involvement in rigging. No source explicitly states that he was involved in the rigging. While we can mention the allegations in the text, placing the template this way suggests actual involvement. Since the template was removed first by an IP and then by me, you are outnumbered in this matter. We should remove the template until a consensus is reached to include it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, WP:BRD there is no reason to be so quick to remove the template the process is to revert first as I did not even add this sidebar in the first place but it existed for a while now meaning consensus. The main point is that I have already given two sources that state his direct involvement in the rigging which are being ignored. Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations has the sidebar even though they are “just allegations”. Sidebar templates are used in pages linked for the sidebar. The IP editor removed this pages’ link from the sidebar so I have contacted them for their reasoning why. Titan2456 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You referenced the article that clearly implicates Donald Trump, with his name prominently mentioned in the title, leaving no doubt that it pertains to him. However, in the case of Shehbaz Sharif, his name does not appear in the title as the sole individual facing allegations. Below are a few pages I checked.

1. Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War: No Putin sidebar template N
2. Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel: No Netanyahu sidebar template N
3. Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election: No Biden sidebar template N
4. Allegations of Barack Obama spying on Donald Trump: No Obama sidebar template N

Additionally, your assertion that the template should not be removed is incorrect. When there is a BLP violation, we are entitled to immediately remove the content that violates the policy and discuss it later. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The template states This article is part of a series about Shehbaz Sharif but the article is not even part of the template, the reason being no consensus to include it in the template. Don't you think fighting over inclusion of a template on an article which is not part of the template, in other words not part of the series on Shehbaz Sharif, a bit of a stretch? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned it was included in the sidebar before, but the IP editor removed it I will for their explanation on why they did so, but this page is for sure linked to Shehbaz Sharif as the sources implicate him. If the IP still continues to defend the removal, then a majority is reached and I will concede. Titan2456 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Implicate" and "allege" have different meanings. He is not implicated in anything. There are allegations of rigging but not directly against him as the election was not conducted under his administration. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources clearly state that Nawaz Sharif was the military’s pick and the rigging allegations were on Sharif during the election [1][2][3] However, as Shehbaz took the role as PM, Shehbaz was called the ‘vote thief’ [4][5] Since most sources call Nawaz the military’s pick during the election (hence closer tied to the rigging) I would accept a compromise that Shehbaz’s sidebar is removed and the Shehbaz template is placed at the bottom, while Nawaz’s sidebar is put in its place at the top. Titan2456 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No sidebar should be included, regardless of the allegations. Allegations remain merely allegations, but a sidebar implies that the living person has been convicted of the crime, which constitutes a WP:BLPVIO and violates WP:NPOV. I am okay with a bottom template, as we have similar examples elsewhere. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There are two examples of having a sidebar and one of having a bottom template, but we don't know which WP articles to follow. The sources show Nawaz as the military's preferred candidate to rigging. WP:BLPVIO does not apply on this article which isn't a BLP. I am not exactly sure how it violates NPOV, though I am willing to compromise by adding Nawaz's sidebar if you believe not enough sources mention Shehbaz's direct role in the allegations. Titan2456 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

For your information, WP:BLPVIO applies to any content related to living individuals, regardless of whether the article is a BLP or not. As I mentioned earlier, using a template like this on a page documenting allegations can imply guilt. Moreover, the allegations against Nawaz are not substantiated. These are indirect accusations, such as the claim that the army allegedly rigged the election in his favor, followed by Nawaz supposedly not wanting to become prime minister. This raises the question of why the elections would be rigged for him if he did not intend to take office. Therefore, it does not make sense to add such a template to an article that suggests a third party rigged elections on his behalf, especially when he supposedly declined the position of prime minister after winning the rigged election. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree to the challenge that we compile a list of ten randomly selected Wikipedia pages documenting various allegations (pages starting with the words "allegations") and checking how many of them include a sidebar template for an involved head of state or government? If the majority include such templates, we keep this one; if the majority do not, we remove it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have sought a third opinion on this issue from an uninvolved editor through WP:3O. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Yes, it is quite clearly a violation of Wikipedia WP:PAGs to keep the sidebar in the article. Per WP:SIDEBAR, the articles using the sidebar should be tightly related and could push a POV. In this case, the subject of the sidebar is mentioned only three times within the article, and not in the lead at all. If you want to have a sidebar that says clearly at the top "This article is part of a series about Shehbaz Sharif", then the article needs to be about him! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Implemented. Titan2456 (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Thank you for feedback and resolving this matter for us as we have been butting our heads over this for quite a long time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)