Talk:1Malaysia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

210.187.51.40 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)one israel.check the fact first before posting[reply]

Bias[edit]

This reads like a government brochure and lacks opposition perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.89.71 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that you are a Roman888 sock puppet and I am removing the NPOV tag. If I am wrong please feel free to re-post the tag and then give specific arguments about specific things in the article that should be changed. Thanks. Monkeyassault (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this IP geolocates to Melbourne, Australia whereas all of Roman888's socks geolocate to Kuala Lumpur. So unless he's on holiday I doubt it's him.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Monkeyassault, I see you have similarly accused another new editor (120.158.230.149 below) of being Roman888 on the pure basis that he holds opposing views to you. Unless you have evidence to that effect, your behaviour is considered uncivil and harassment, and you would do well to tone down on your accusations.
I agree this article doesn't conform to NPOV and reads like a government advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.158.230.149 (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Najib says... Najib this... Najib that... not very objective is it. 124.149.138.13 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It IS factually correct that he did say all those things considering those were his policies. The statement of whether he said it or not, is not subjective.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edit[edit]

This edit cites "This section contains POV information both for and against the government" as one of the reasons for removal, which is an odd reason given that since both "for" and "against", the NPOV issue is basically moderated as each is given billing. Another reason given was that it was incoherent, which can be fixed by re-writing. Don't throw the baby out with the wash water, please practice judicious editing.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons I cited for my edit were quite reasonable. The section, as it was at the time, included POV language. Some of it was pro-government. Some of it was anti-government. All of it did not belong.Monkeyassault (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which justifies a re-write, not a wholesale removal.Zhanzhao (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Response" section[edit]

The One-Israel allegation as published by Reuters is written as a report of the parlimentary response to a politician's vocal statements comparing 1Malaysia and One-Israel. As far as I can see the language is NPOV, so I don't see how this reuters report can be considered fringe pushing. If anything, it does the exact opposite.Zhanzhao (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find published articles about all kinds of conspiracy theories in the media. That does not make them any less fringe. The purpose of this text is to slip the idea that 1Malaysia has something to do with One Israel in through the back door. It is a violation of the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. Monkeyassault (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A small section is hardly giving promotion of fringe theories. I.e. you find mention of conspiracy theories on the 9/11 incident in the main article. The criteria is that it should not be given undue weight.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zhanzhao. I have reverted your edits. The material removed is not really of any value to an encyclopedia. It has somewhat of a bias towards news, is of dubious notability, and the subsection on this One Israel thing tells nothing about 1Malaysia and is clearly and an attempt to promote a conspiracy theory in vio of policy. Lesbianadvocate (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If lukewarm response to a policy is regarded as not notable, wouldn't that mean that positive response to the policy would have to be removed as well, since it would likewise not be notable? As for being notable, as per WP:NOT, the 4 tests are "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources", "Independent of the subject". Which you will find in abundance in these links as reported and discussed on The New Straits Times,The Star,Borneo Post][My Sin Chew paper][Financial Times,Bernama, not including coverage in the original article as published on Reuters. Note that I'm not bashing the policy, I'm just including in the article that questions have been raised by it, by notable persons and reported by reliable sources. Balancing the article is critical to keeping Wikipedia's neutral stance. If not, as mentioned by another editor prior, the whole article would indeed meed like a whitewashed PR writeup. Its not as if the article is being bombarded with criticism, only a small "response" section is being tacked to the bottom.Zhanzhao (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal off anything remotely negative about 1Malaysia[edit]

Monkeyassault, I noticed that you seem to be against anyone raising anything even remotely negative about the 1Malaysia policy. Other than the points I have raised, I see that content Dr Mahathir (Malaysia's previous prime minister) questioning the policy was similarly removed in another article. As you were the one who made the suggestion to move it here, here it is. Its understandable that public policy will not satisfy every single person, but censoring it here on Wikipedia does not help.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added POV flag to "Responses" section[edit]

The language in this section is clearly designed to get attacks in through the backdoor and add no value to the article. This stuff has got to go. Monkeyassault (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object to the removal. Commentary on public policy should be taken as it is, commentory, it is by itself not negative nor should be taken as an attack, as it is only stating a response to a policy. Vote for inclusion as those were notable incidents or comments made by notable persons (one being Najib's predecessor once removed). As for the language used, it is afterall quoting the source. The article has been worded such that the quotes were properly attributed to the sources, as per wiki policy. You may try to paraphrase it, but please only do so if you can do it without changing the meaning of the content. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a forum for commentary. The purpose of each article is to inform readers about its subject. If someone's opinion tells us something valuable about subject then it makes sense to include it. This One Israel nonsense does not provide any information about 1Malaysia. It serves the sole purpose of promoting a bizarre conspiracy theory that the Israeli government is somehow connected to 1Malaysia. Please read the article on coatracks, Wikipedia:Coatrack. This content seems to be a slightly modified case of the "Criticism Gambit". If this were an article on Malaysian political conspiracy theories it would be appropriate content, but that is not what this article is about. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying applies only to the One-Israel content, but what you are apparently suggesting with the POV tag applied to the whole response section and your wording above is the wholesale remove of the entire response section. Anyway what I wrote above refers to the other sections in the response area, and commentary refers to the comments made by Dr Mahathir with regards to the 1Malaysia policy. AS you seem to be only contesting the OneIsrael section, I would suggest that you move the POV flag to only cover that section, to avoid any continued confusion (which has already spread to the admin notices board). Zhanzhao (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do in fact object to the entire section but I object to the other content on different grounds that do not rise to the level of something that should be addressed at ANI. I view sectios specifically dedicated to criticism as inherently POV. They attract irrelevant content, encourage attacks against the subjects of articles, and generate edit wars. If criticism is notable and adds to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article then it should be kept but placed in relevant context.Monkeyassault (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Israel[edit]

"Anwar then produced documents in parliament showing that APCO previously had also created the One Israel concept in 1999 for then Israeli's Prime Minister Ehud Barak." I just removed this text from the One Israel subsection. The source, Malaysiakini, seems to have uncritically repeated Anwar's claims. The Star, an equal or better source, contradicts this statement as well. In a story dated 31 March 2010 they write:

"'The CEO and top officials of Mindteams Sdn Bhd were also the same people who had signed agreements on behalf of Apco with the Malaysian Government to help burnish the country’s image overseas,' he claimed, holding up papers which he alleged were evidence but later, at a press conference declined to divulge the contents of the documents."

So we are just going to take the word of Anwar and Malaysiakini when the public doesn't get to see the documents? Given what The Star says the text I removed just cannot be substantiated.

The same article continues:

"In an immediate response, Apco issued a statement to Bernama yesterday, reiterating that it had neither worked with the Israeli government nor helped to create the 1Malaysia concept. 'The allegations repeated against Apco Worldwide in Parliament today are false. Apco Worldwide is not working for the government of Israel. We did not devise the 1Malaysia concept,' said the statement."

And here is some more:

"Meanwhile, Deputy Information, Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Joseph Salang said Apco was not involved at all in the ministry’s affairs. 'As far as I know, my ministry is not using the services of the company,' he said."

All of this severely undercuts the version of events that Roman888/IPs are pushing.Monkeyassault (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another article from the Star, which is actually used a reference in the One Israel subsection, confirms that Anwar actually refused to release the documents he claimed to have. Here is the link: [1].Monkeyassault (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You trust the Star newspaper? The newspaper that is owned by the MCA party which is a member of Barisan and the government? A newspaper that reported that there were 10,000 people in the Bersih rally when actually there were 50,000 people. You also mentioned Bernama another mouthpiece by the Malaysian government? A news organisation that continues to print rosy pictures of the Malaysian economy when many of the middle and poor families in Malaysia are struggling to survive. Of course APCO and the government will deny everything that Anwar brings up because the public is going to roast them for being in cahoots with the Israeli-linked company when they are bashing Israel in the international arena. That's a bunch of hypocrites for you there. Here's a Malaysiakini link where Anwar produced the documents in Parliament - [2] or the Malaysian Mirror site - [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.158.9.65 (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roman, you are just digging your hole deeper and deeper. Please stop the pushing fringe POV ideas. You have been doing this for more than a year now and it is exasperating. In any event, your personal anecdotes about rallies and the such are irrelevant. Wikipedia relies only on verifiable information from reliable third party sources.Monkeyassault (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just opened an sockpuppet investigation against you. Go defend yourself if you wish. I am not going through the trouble of posting to all the talk pages of your IP addresses as that you will certainly see my comment here. Search under Roman888. Monkeyassault (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. I also cannot believe a Malaysian like you are not able to differentiate what is reported in the Malaysian mass media and the free online media. Personally I think that Wikipedia should also open an investigation against you for your past transgressions and deleting of whole sections of articles. It isn't pretty since all they have to do is look at the last 500 of your past contributions to build up a cast against you. They also can read the ANI report section to see that many editors are not supportive of your actions. Anyone would know that you are trying to detract from the major problems which you have caused in the past with your so-called waste-of-time reportings and starting up new investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.153.1.86 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Star is significantly more reliable than Malaysiakini. I could accept The Malaysian Insider as a source, but not Mkini. Of all the mainstream media, The Star is the least pro-government. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a sentence saying "Anwar claims to have 2 documents which back up his allegation"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you read the sources you can see that this really has nothing to do with 1Malaysia. This is really about Anwar Ibrahim and his habit of invoking conspiracy theories that involve Jews. The only possible purpose of adding this section to the article is to promote just those very kind of conspiracy theories. Monkeyassault (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It completely relates to 1Malaysia. It's the reaction of a major opposition leader to a government policy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But his reaction has nothing to do with 1Malaysia. He does not even talk about any of the details. The whole focus is on a supposed Jewish conspiracy. It tells us a lot about Anwar and nothing about 1Malaysia.Monkeyassault (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His "reaction" was about 1Malaysia. That makes it completely relevant. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this back in, I though we went over this already. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 1Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 1Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1Malaysia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1Malaysia&oldid=1196337385"