Talk:Riza Aziz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Opening section: In reference to revisions by (@Babymissfortune:) and (@TheGracefulSlick:) I would really like to discuss your views on the reference to the subject being one of the key figures identified in the 1MDB sovereign wealth fund scandal. I can't understand what the problem is: this is factually correct and neutral, referenced by a CNN story and the main reason this guy is notable - it should be in the first section. •From the CNN article: "The lawsuit names at least three top players." He is one of them. The lawsuit is being taken by the U.S. government. •Google his name - 6/10 results on page 1 refer to the 1MDB scandal meaning this is more notable than anything else he has done. •Refer to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1Malaysia_Development_Berhad_scandal - he is mentioned four times. •The description "one of the leading Hollywood producers" is not supported by a citation - the citation refers to the 1MDB scandal! But you keep reverting to this edit. Happy to discuss

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.193.122 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC) 

News story allegation can be considered part of wikipedia and is what we called controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVCfiredauz (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View says ' do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality

If you feel there is bias,just rewrite it to achieve neutral tone,no need to remove it as wikipedia policy says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVCfiredauz (talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I also want to stress out that although my reference list direct it to Malaysian Chronicle,the part I actually quoted come from Hollywood insiders(without a doubt trustworthy source) who speak to Sarawak Report which offer explanation on why Riza Aziz got drop out of the Oscar nominee.

On Wikipedia, there is a strict policy for Biographies of Living Persons which you continue to violate. Potentially libelous material must be sourced from legitimate news sources, neither of which your area. You appear to have a COI, which you may wish to describe. Please provide an authoritative and credible source for your claims, not a single Malaysian blog. Versaedit (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me which part Biographies of Living Person I violate.Be specific. Non of the source I use are blog.They are legitimate including interview with Hollywood.Anyway,I choose to remove it for now.

I reference the source you use in your allegations, which is the subject of this article: Deadline.com Letter to Sarawak Report. This source cannot be considered neutral, either on the basis of it's claims, or the fact that it is the subject of a claim of defamation, which is also a BLP violation. In addition, the language that you use to support the claims is not neutral, and not proven in any way. I'd like other editors to weigh in on removing this language. Since we have not been able to accomplish this collaboratively, I am creating a RfC. Versaedit (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

I have removed the Controversy section. Is was a significant BLP violation in both content and presentation. The use of Wikipedia's voice to make highly contentious assertions was particularly unacceptable. This is an adminstrative action per this arbitration remedy. The material should not be restored in its previous state but a balanced and rigourously sourced presentation of some of the material may be appropriate at the discretion of a consensus of editors. CIreland (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not your call as the issue is still under discussion. Either reword the sentences so they can conform to Wikipedia standards. The issue of the purchase of the penthouse and the ability to fund the movies under Red Granite Pictures which were removed brings about a WP:NPOV issue.124.184.197.84 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)