Talk:Imran Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
Imran Khan is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] External Link not bringing the relevant story

all,
1) Refer to the link 8. It doesnt bring the story out which is referenced in the article

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=58131/

Thanks, Aileee 08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)ailee

2) Also refer to link 7. No where in that article its mentioned whats been claimed in the wikipedia entry of Imran Khan that "A US judge ruled him to be the father of Tyrian White after he failed to appear for a DNA test." (http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2004/06/22/jemimakhan/) Shouldnt this statement be removed? Thanks, --Aileee 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education at Oxford

{{editprotected}}

The article currently says that Imran Khan has an undergraduate degree in Economics, which is not strictly true. Another page, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, said that he has a master's degree is political science, economics, and philosophy. As an undergraduate he read the famous degree of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, known as PPE, and was awarded an Bachelor of Arts degree. A few years later he would have become eligible to receive the degree of Master of Arts (see Master of Arts (Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin)), but this degree is not awarded in any particular subject. Could I suggest the something like the following is put in place of what is there already:

He was an undergraduate at [[Keble College, Oxford]], where he read [[Philosophy, Politics, and Economics]]. He was awarded the degree of [[Bachelor of Arts]] and subsequently that of [[Master of Arts (Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin)|Master of Arts]] of the [[University of Oxford]].<ref>[http://www.oxfordstudent.com/tt1999wk5/News/the_interview:_anything_he_khan't_do%3F 'The Interview: Anything he Khan't do?', ''The Oxford Student'', 5th Week, Trinity Term 1999]</ref>

Protection has been reduced to semiprotection, so nearly any editor can edit the article, if appropriate. Also please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article out of date

Article is out-of-date—most probably written before he started his career in politics. There might be copyvio issues.--—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 22:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Namal College

Once the editing disputes have been resolved could someone add a link to the Namal College page. The Wikipedia page on Imran Khan states that Imran Khan is constructing a University in Mianwali but does not give specific details or the link to the Wikipedia page on the University.

Namal College will be an associate college of the University of Bradford. The Namal College page also needs to be heavily edited and expanded.



[edit] Newsweek controversy

I think the article should include some mention of Khan's role in the controversy; as part of that I don't think it is inappropriate to mention the criticism of Khan by some in the West, as the Weekly Standard is not exactly some tabloid. I've restored the text and tried to make the text a bit more neutral. Neilc 30 June 2005 12:57 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek controversy etc

Neil, firstly he didn't ask for apology from Newsweek. He brought up the desecration on TV while criticizing the war in Iraq.

Secondly, the tabaloid stuff that appeared about him in the late 1970's was a part of Kerry Packer marketing. There was nothing "playboyish" about his lifestyle, if anything he had a permanent girlfriend in Emma Seargent during the mid 1980's. What is true though was that he was a prominent "socialite" in London often found in the company of Jeffery Archer, Goldie Hawn etc. But that's not a contradiction with his politics as these things date back to the 1980's well before he joined politics or got married.

Also, is there a credible link that quotes any hardline islamic views from him (a subjective matter in the first place)? If not, it should be left out of this page.

Regarding the "apology", the Weekly Standard article states:
On Friday, May 6 Khan catapulted the 300-word Newsweek story about a Koran being flushed down the toilet into headline news across the Muslim world by brandishing the article at a press conference and demanding that Pakistani president Gen. Pervez Musharraf secure an apology from George W. Bush for the incident.

f you have a reputable citation that proves this is incorrect, please provide it. As for "Kerry Packer" marketing, I don't think it is incorrect to call Khan a "playboy", even if some of his exploits may have been exagerrated. Neilc 1 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

If it's your opinion that's fine, but what has that got to do with any objective point of view? You still have to cite a link to prove him to be one (other than magazines quoting tabaloids). Also, where is the link for his supporting a strict interpretation of Islam in Pak politics? As for "jump-starting" the frenzy, that's newsweek's allegation. Apart from Newsweek nobody has asserted that the frenzy was started following the discussion on TV.

I think the Weekly Standard is a reasonable source (and is certainly not a "tabaloid", not does it "quote tabaloids"). But there are plenty of others; take this MSNBC article, which states:
The spark was apparently lit at a press conference held on Friday, May 6, by Imran Khan, a Pakistani cricket legend and strident critic of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Brandishing a copy of that week's NEWSWEEK (dated May 9), Khan read a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo prison had placed the Qur'an on toilet seats and even flushed one. "This is what the U.S. is doing," exclaimed Khan, "desecrating the Qur'an." His remarks, as well as the outraged comments of Muslim clerics and Pakistani government officials, were picked up on local radio and played throughout neighboring Afghanistan. Radical Islamic foes of the U.S.-friendly regime of Hamid Karzai quickly exploited local discontent with a poor economy and the continued presence of U.S. forces, and riots began breaking out last week.
I think this fairly conclusively supports the claim that Khan played a major role in initiating the riots. The NYT articles on the riot are unfortunately no longer available online for free (AFAIK), but this post on Belgravia Dispatch quotes from a NYT article as follows:
The outcry over the Newsweek article apparently began in Pakistan, when Imran Khan, the legendary cricketer turned opposition politician, summoned reporters to a press conference on May 6 to draw attention to it. Once close to the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and a onetime crusader against corruption, Mr. Khan has been vocal in recent years against United States strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Islam is under attack in the name of the war on terror," Mr. Khan, now one of General Musharraf's most stalwart critics, told reporters. He pressed the Musharraf regime to demand an apology from Washington.

Regarding Khan being a playboy, there are various references to that, such as in this BBC story:
With the game came a playboy image with high profile girlfriends at his side. Khan admits to being a cocky 18-year-old, which he says was not helped by his star-treatment.
Or this article, which refers to Khan as a "cricketing legend and international playboy-turned-political crusader". Neilc 1 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)


Neil, once again, all these articles point out is that he read out the newsweek article on TV while criticizing the Musharraf govt's support to it. Whether the riots were triggered by it is speculative at best. It would have been different had he led a rally that went violent or something.

Regarding the playboy image, it is a tag he carried from the Kerry Packer days and your links just refer to it. They don't substantiate anything about his lifestyle that playboyish.

Finally, one of the guidelines for Wikipedia is:

Credibility, by, for example, reducing the number of phantom attributions such as "most people feel", or "some experts claim" which are frequently used to disguise rants and mere opinion.

So things like "some in the west feel that he is a hypocrite..." don't quite belong here and are mere opinions (and perhaps rants). We will still keep the part about newsweek as all said and done he has some association to it, but there is no need to add speculative and unestablished things.

Regarding Khan's role in the riots, whether or not you think it is "speculation" isn't important. Numerous reputable news organizations seem to think that the speculation is reliable enough to include in their stories, so I think we can take their word for it (particularly since you haven't provided any evidence that this "speculation" is mistaken).

Regarding him being a "playboy", I really think this is common knowledge, and I don't see what evidence there is to support your claim that it is propaganda from "Kerry Packer".

WRT "phantom assertions", that's why I've included citations in the article. Neilc 3 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)


particularly since you haven't provided any evidence that this "speculation" is mistaken

Neil, it is the job of the person who makes an allegation to prove that them, not the other way around. So if you are accusing him of being a hypocrite, a playboy, extremist etc, then it's your job to prove it, not the person refuting. Otherwise, you could vanadalize almost any person's biography on the encyclopedia because allegations and conspiracy theories can be found against almost any prominent person which can't necessarily be refuted. And as I mentioned earlier, your links do not substantiate why he is/was a playboy (does he have a harem or something? what makes a person a playboy?). And what did role did he play in the riots? All he did was read out on TV what was already published (something that I have already included in the page). People who cause riots fabricate news, lead mobs, ask people to form mobs, take out rallies that turn violent etc. You need to find a link where he is involved in such activity, otherwise you are coming across as someone who is ranting and for all practical purposes vandalizing this page!

I'm not "accusing him of being a hypocrite" -- I'm just documenting that a fair number of people in the West accused him of being one. That is part of the public record; whether or not that accusation is objectively correct is not the point.

As for the role he played in the riots, the article text merely states what has been reported by MSNBC, NYT, and numerous other publications: the Khan played a significant role in starting the controversy. I don't see how that is open to debate; if you don't think his actions had anything to do with the riots, then please reread the citations I provided above.

Regarding him being a playboy, I can't say I really care, I'll remove that from the article. Neilc 4 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

"He was in the news after Newsweek alleged that his "reading out aloud" their article describing the Quran desecration played a part in the frenzy that followed." That's just a nonsensical statement. Newsweek would have had to have expected people to read their article. Imran can't be held responsible for the actions of people after he brought attention to a piece of writing that was already a part of the public record.

[edit] Overs bowled

Cricinfo lists the number of balls bowled by Imran Khan, rather than overs bowled. (19458 balls bowled in Test matches and 7461 bowled in ODIs). Since each over is six balls the figures for the test match convert easily enough to 3243 overs bowled. But 7461 balls converts to 1243 overs and 3 balls which should be written out as 1243.5 overs (since it's half an over) rather than 1243.3 as was previously entered in the ODI overs bowled. Hulleye 10:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


This is an issue that has more than one interpretation. I changed it back to 1241.1 (which was the one that was used till a couple of days ago), because though IK bowled 7461 balls that does not equal 1243.3 overs. He played one ODI match in his career that had 8 ball overs Scorecard, where he bowled 7 overs or 56 balls. It it this difference of 14 balls (56-42) that leads to the figure of 1243.3 when you do a plain division. Similarly for Tests also.

The question is whether we should have number of overs or number of balls. We have discussed it before and I can't remember what the consensus was. I have reverted the number for the time being to the original value, and we can decide it after discussing here or on the Project Cricket Pages. Please do not change the figures till you get some sort of consensus.

As an aside, 1243.5 is not correct. It is the convention in cricket to use the overs.balls form. 12.5 is read as 12 overs and 5 balls, and not 12 overs and 3 balls. Tintin

I stand corrected... had never heard of an 8-ball over. very interesting, what was the reasoning behind this, any idea? Also, in light of this, would it not be more appropriate to list the number of balls bowled rather than overs bowled? Hulleye 06:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of politics section

I believe that the section must be expanded as several other facets of his political life need to be covered. e.g. Difficulties in campaigning etc., repercussions on personal life, allegations abt mismanagement of funds for hospital etc. may need to be touched upon. AFIK, the first time he contested elections, he did so from five places but was not elected from any. Someone may want to include it after verifying the veracity of the same. --Gurubrahma 06:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would you like to that?


[edit] PHOTO

Please find a better photo. Part of his Imran's face is obscured

[edit] Court Action

Didn't Imran win a court victory over Lamb and Botham over allegations of ball tampering. Should be mentioned, I feel.

[edit] Khan is controversial

Imran Khan is a very controversial figure, with a political career replete with contradictions and a personal life to match.

In the mid 90s there were hints (never confirmed) of his involvement in a death threat against one of Pakistan's greatest philanthropists, Abdul Sattar Edhi. Edhi escaped Pakistan during that time to Dubai. Khan was closely tied during that time to Hamid Gul, the former head of the ISI (Pakistan's Intelligence Service), whom the Americans claim is linked in turn to the Taliban movement in Afghanistan.

Although Khan is very popular as a former cricketer in Pakistan, he failed to translate that to popularity on the political scene, largely because of the constant shifting in positions. Under Benazir Bhutto's regime, he was supporting her main rival Nawaz Sherif. When Nawaz Sherif was ousted from government by the military coup of the current President Musharaf, he supported Musharaf and then turned against him.

As a member of the opposition and in an attempt to compensate for the absence of street support for his movement, he sides with the MMA and other religious parties.

On a personal level a lot of rumors still plague his personal life, from his involvement with a French business woman following his divorce to rumors of a liaison with Goldie Hawn. His personal life continues to be fodder for the social circles of Pakistan. --Seagull2006 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

These are serious accusations you're making against the man. I hope you have some strong sources to back up these charges. May I direct you to the banner, second from the top of this discussion page, about policy on biographies on living people which reads, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." If you you have little or no reference material to back up your wild claims, I suggest that in the future you refrain from using the discussion board to air your personal feelings about the person and look for sources before making edits.Muzher 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] How controversial?

There is no doubt Khan is controversial. But I think most of the controversies are a part of various campaigns against him by certain political parties that are strong in the Punjab province of Pakistan and see him as a threat to their vote bank. Apart from the Sita White controversy that came to light in the late nineties, absolutely nothing has ever been proven. In fact today, as a politician, he is much stronger. -- bandishhh 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Sita White controversy is pretty big and not limited to Punjab. The problem was not just having a kid with a woman he was never married to (Pakistan is mostly very conservative in these matters), but the fact that he repeatedly denied being the father and refused to show up for DNA testing. Sita White had numerous press conferences accusing him of stalling and lying about claiming his daughter. Another major controversy was discussed recently about his performance as captain during the 92 world cup which Pakistan won. Many of the senior players were against him and didn't want to play under him because of a series of arguments. He also had many issues with Javed Miandad and declared in a test match with Miandad at 280* while time was not an issue in the match. In a normal situation the captain would let the batsman reach 300 before declaring. Kf0030 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock

Can we unlock this page? Because since Imran Khan has been quite a bit in the news lately and leading the fight against the Musharraf regime, it is sad that we are not able to update this page. -- bandishhh 15: 30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spot the odd one out

"Imran is seen as one of the finest all-rounders the game has ever produced, along with Garfield Sobers, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee and Wasim Akram."

To my mind one of those names just doesnt quite fit! --LiamE 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ian Botham never really did it against the West Indies - Tazz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.3.18 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of Surname

Just out of interest, should his surname be pronounced "Karn" or should the "Kh" bit be like the "ch" on "loch Ness", as it would were his name written in Arabic? I have been learning Arabic and there are quite a few people with the surname "Khan" here in England, sometimes I think I might try to pronounce it as I think it should go but I could well be wrong and be made to look a complete plonker. I think even people with that name pronounce it "Karn" in England.

Furthermore, is his name written in Urdu properly in the article? The 'yaa' looks like there is only one dot underneath it, i.e. it's a 'baa' (except that would be a 'bay' in Urdu). Maybe it's supposed to be like that? Milvinder 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough "Khan" is one of the few names where its original pronunciation has little or no bearing as to how it is pronounced in English as the word is itself part of English language with its own English pronunciation. "Khan" has been used in English as the title of central Asian rulers for many hundreds of years. The OED says in English it is pronounced "kahn", so it is a k no at ch. Of course in this case we also have the man himself who's English has always been immaculate. I have never noticed a "ch" in his own pronunciation. --LiamE 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Families who use the name "Khan" contend that they are decendents of Genghis Khan. Milvinder, it is pronounced as a letter Khat is Arabic and not Shat as in "cha". Nor is it correct that the pronounciation is Kahn, as in "can". Khan is a Muslim family name used only by Muslims in the indian sub-continent (india/pakistan/Bangladesh) and Afghanistan.

On a slightly related note I have noted that "Burqa" can sometimes be written "Burkha". When I first saw this in the Telegraph I thought it was a mistake until I checked on Wikipedia. So in Pashto and related languages, can "Khat" actually be pronounced as a 'K'? Re: the letter 'cha', by my Loch Ness example I didn't mean a "ch" sound in standard English. It's just that the sound represented by "khaa" doesn't exist in English, so the Scots "ch" on "loch" was the nearest I could get. The only English dialect I can think of where they do have "khaa" is Scouse, where they might say "I'm not going to weuurkh today" instead of "work". Anyway, this is going off the subject if Imran Khan so I think this will be my last contribution to this thread! Milvinder 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Khan is not Mongolian name, it was used by many people prior to the arrrival of Ghenhis Khan, in fact Genghis Khan copied Khan from Pakhtuns. His real name was not Gehnghis Khan. Also, Burka or Burkha are both totally wrong prononciation, these are western given names. The offical pronounciation is "Booghra". Khan1982

[edit] imran khan in politices

imran khan is not controverciel poltition he is only clean man in politices of pakistan after air martiel asgher khan who neighter make under hand deal with army nor crupt polition of pakistan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.65.202.4 (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] University of Bradford

The following was added to the UoB page, is it included here somewhere? As the user who added it appears to have taken offence to it removal. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Khan[1] considers American President George Bush to be #1 terrorist of the world[2] and is the founder and chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, whose 700 members, on Friday, June 22, 2007, chanted "Curse Rushdie, Long Live Osama (Bin Laden)"[3]. Mr. Khan allegedly fathered a girl out of wedlock, allegedly urged his British lover [4] to have an abortion, still denies the fatherhood,[5] and has refused to take a DNA test ordered by California Superior Court.[6]

[edit] Probably libellous section heading removed

If one talks like a Taliban, supports Taliban, is supported by Taliban. Then he is a Taliban.

"US should keep it in mind if it dared to attack holiest places of Muslims, it will stand effaced on the map of world, he warned. Over one billion Muslims will become suicide bombers across the world in the event of US attack, he added." Online News [1]

"Had I been a Waziristani, I would have been doing the same that the Waziristanis are doing against the Pakistani security forces." [2] Note: This could be considered "treason" against the State of Pakistan.

"Taliban leader" Access News Taliban Leader

Similar assertions in this Associated Press of Pakistan news item. Taliban Supporter

"President George Bush is #1 terrorist of the world" [3]

“Various Tribal Heads from FATA have rigorously protested against Muttahida Quami Movement over the statements from the leaders of MQM against the Head of Tehreek-e-Insaaf, Imran Khan and have said that by making these statements against their beloved hero Imran Khan, MQM was making mistakes over and over again, and that by doing so MQM would eventually alienat itself in the politics. These heads of the tribes were addressing “Lui Jirga” at North Wazeeristan last Saturday. This Jirga was attended by heads of the tribes, elites, and general public from South and North Wazeeristan, Kurram Agency, Orakzai Agency, Bajore Agency, and FR areas. Those who addressed the Jirga summoned MQM that it should realize that over 10 million warriors from these tribes were with the “National Hero” Imran Khan and if somebody would dare to harm The Khan, would bear the grave consequences in retaliation from tribes. They further warned MQM that if it would not change its course, protests on large scale would be staged in tribal areas and NWFP.” Translated text of Urdu news from Jasarat May 27, 2007 [4]

Admins, please take notice of Slp1 and FCYTravis' unsubstantiated reverts of fully sourced text. There reverts don't have much to do with anything but their dislike of the consequences of Imran Khan's political moves.

M12390 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

None of what you have posted in any way verifiably or reliably supports your assertion that Mr. Khan is connected with the Taliban. I don't know the first thing about Imran Khan's political moves, except for the apparent fact that you dislike them. FCYTravis 07:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I too know nothing about Mr. Khan as a politician, but I can read sources and my opinion, supported by others it appears, is that the sources you provide do not support the very serious claim you are making. I would suggest first reading WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:SYN andWP:RS. You will need better sources, and no original synthesis if you wish this claim to be included in the article.Slp1 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Slp1, I am not synthesizing anything. The term "Taliban leader" exists in this [5] news item from Axcess News. I don't know what "better sources" are you looking for. According to their websites, "AXcess News first began publishing online in August 2002. Since then, its grown into a news network with 92 major cities now online and syndicated headlines that reach over 3,000,000 viewers daily. AXcess News is now one of the largest online publishers of daily news in North America." Axcess News claims to be "dedicated to reporting on news that's important to people, not what's necessarily media driven content. If your looking for stories like that, you won't find them here. We focus on select catagories of news and try to report those stories in an objective manner. Offering readers as much information as we can gather is what sets us apart from the rest when selecting newsworthy subjects to write about." [6] It is you who is "synthesizing" that Axcess News is not a "better source". What is a "better source" then?
"Imran Khan, the man who sparked the Newsweek riots...EMBODIES THE HYPOCRISY of Muslim elites who inveigh against the West by day and enjoy its pleasures by night." is not figment of my imagination or even synthesis. It exists here [7] at The Daily Standard site. "Islam is under attack in the name of the war on terror," is not figment of my imagination or even synthesis. This is said by the Taliban leader" Imran Khan himself as was quoted in New York Times [8]
The reason to provide myriad of corroborating information is NOT to create some kind of synthesis, but to provide background for the "Taliban leader" claim made by Axcess News in this [9] news report.
Slp1, now my synthesis of the censorship situations created by certain amdins. You have no logical leg to stand on. Both of you have admitted to your ignorance of Imran Khan's politics. I have studied Imran Khan's politics for years. I am very aware of Talibans and Islamists and their use of Western technology and even the legal system to their advantage.[10] The best way to approach the issue is to leave "Taliban leader" in the article, and let people refute why he is not, to evolved a NPOV. The only reason "Taliban leader" is not in the article because you, FCYTravis and others are deleting it BECAUSE YOU CAN. You are committing censorship, only because you have the admin powers and you are abusing that power. This is very sad for the Western technology, society and legal system, which gave birth to Wikipedia. Taliban will never allow a Wikipedia-like system to develop or even exist. And we have unqualified people, with admin powers, who think that they know better. This is very sad for Wikipedia. Very sad!!! M12390 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings M12390. Here is the deal.
This is Wikipedia and if you want to edit the articles you need to abide by the policies here. I mentioned various relevant policies and guidelines above, but it seems things are a bit unclear so I will try again:
  • Additions to Wikipedia need to the verifiable and because Imran Khan is alive, and biographies of living people applies which raises the bar even higher. Check the policy pages out. In particular, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Also "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers", as well as "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Yours is an exceptional claim and for this you have found one reference to support your POV, Axcess News. Had you ever heard of Axcess News before this? I hadn't, and neither have others. It is certainly not a "mainstream newspaper", for example. Others have commented that they do not consider this to be a reliable enough ("exceptional" or "high quality" to quote policy) source for this exceptional and possibly libellous claim [11] and I agree with them.
  • Your other references, the "myriad of corroborating information", an admitted attempt at "background" to back up your claim, is a Duck test piece of Original Research, which is not allowed here.
Here is the point. You MUST stop posting these accusations anywhere on Wikipedia (including talk and userpages) until you can get other, more mainstream sources for your point. Find something clearly stating the same thing one or more news outlet such as the NY Times, The Times, CNN, BBC, etc and your editing path will be much less arduous. --Slp1 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Slp1, I totally disagree with your absurd "synthesis" that one should only quote from billion-dollar outfits like NYT, Times, CNN, BBC, etc. Your "logic" is absurd, and trying to "reason" with you will only get me in trouble because you will continue to throw one "rule" after the other, and will continue to raise the bar, to defend your political bias for Imran Khan. May I start deleting all references from articles which don't quote multi-billion dollar sources. I will just refer them to you that you said so. Is that a deal? M12390 00:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Read carefully what I wrote. According to policy you need "exceptional", "high quality", "mainstream" sources for an exceptional claim like this. I gave a few examples that noone will dispute but there are many others, of course. And I am not raising the bar at all, just showing you that it is (and has always been) there for this and other articles.Slp1 00:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I dispute the sources your "trust" all the time, and I can tear their propagandist "news" apart in no time. They may be "exceptional" and "high quality" for you, but not for me. For me, news as well as opinion are only reliable IF they can be corroborated by various sources; big or small. Slp1, you are not my intellectual match. Arguing with you is like hitting a stone wall of political bias that you hold in Imran Khan's favor. Therefore, don't try to justify your illogical logic. The reality on the ground is that you have admin powers, and I don't. And that is the problem. M12390 01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
These are not my rules, but Wikipedia's. And you need to follow them if you want to contribute here, as we all do, editors and administrators (which I am not) alike Slp1 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well this is what is going to happen soon. By the time this page is unfrozen, you will have heard "Taliban leader" from more sources. It is just a matter of time. :) M12390 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imran Khan vs Botham & Lamb court case

As far as I remember, it was Botham and Lamb who sued Imran (not the other way round, as claimed in the article). Can someone please provide a reference for the case?Kuifjeenbobbie 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. You are quite correct based on this Guardian article.[12]. A request will need to be made for this edit to be made and I will do it this evening if nobody else has had the time by then.--Slp1 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] requesting edit

As pointed out above, the sentence "Imran sued both Lamb and Botham for libel and was awarded £400,000 by a British court." is incorrect.
Please substitute with
Lamb and Botham sued Khan for libel claiming he had called them racist, badly educated and brought up. Khan won the case, successfully arguing that he had been misquoted. [7][8]