Jump to content

Talk:Abdul Taib Mahmud

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

Wikipedia cited!

[edit]

This article has been cited by Malaysiakini about him amassing wealth for 27 years: "S'wak CM in Wikipedia: 'Hush hush' in the assembly", Malaysiakini, May 9, 2008. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone find credible evidence about the involvement in the Canadian and Australian companies mentioned here. With out it, this article would be just a rumor board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.255.108.2 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Needed

[edit]

There are a number of missing citations throughout this article. Most notably there are missing citations within the 'Controversies' section, which suggests that there is some sort of political or other motivation behind these unfounded claims.

We need to ensure that this article is neutral and states the facts. If editors can please find citations for areas that I have marked as soon as possible. If citations cannot be found for these areas then they must be deleted. Check out the Wikipedia's Content Removal for guidance [Wikipedia Removal Guide]

Thanks all Biggleswiki (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies - Missing/Poor Citations

[edit]

I removed a huge number of dead links within this article and there are many sections that need attention, so I though we could start with the most problematic, 'Controversies'.

A number of statements within the 'Controversies' section are not referenced at all. If there are statements without references then they should be deleted immediately. This article attracts a number of politically motivated Wikipedians so we must make sure everything is referenced properly, if not, remove it.

Please add references asap before we start removing unfounded statements.

Thanks,

Biggleswiki (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggleswiki's case

[edit]

How Biggleswiki was being investigated in the news:

Missing References

[edit]

There are 100 references in the article but only 3 in the references. This is very unsatisfactory, as many of them point to sources exposing corruption of a figure know to pay media outfits, e.g. to duplciated the sarawakreport.org. Can Governments remove refererences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.133 (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern about missing references in this article. All the references have been restored.Cerevisae (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resign

[edit]

I'm already heared that he already resign from being Sarawak Chief Minister after 33 years being a chief minister.--Apli kasi 18:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logging Industry - 2nd paragraph

[edit]

The paragraph admits what it initially says is false and even the citation from Malaysiakini is an apology for what was accused. It's obvious he doesn't get the same gushing entry as Ahmad Zaidi Adruce or Rosli Dhobi, but this needs clean up.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. This paragraph needs clean-up. Cerevisae (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is saying the whole thing was a mistake the clean up should be deletion for that paragraph. If we allow admitted false accusations to stay we invite the downfall of Wikipedia credibility. Thoughts?--AhmedFaizP (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph removed.Cerevisae (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Witness covert filming section

[edit]

I've read this over and my concern is the use of the words alleged and allegations. It appears again in the Sarawak Report and Bruno Manser Fund section under Personal Wealth also. It seems very suspect since I couldn't find any charges or convictions related to these stories. The Global Witness paragraph veers greatly away from talking about the subject himself. The citations refer to investigations but I couldn't find much in the way of proof, almost bordering on Wikipedia:Libel. Thoughts?--AhmedFaizP (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cerevisae, do you have any thoughts on the language being used? You seem to be the only one that responds to my talk page discussions :) --AhmedFaizP (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Personal Wealth" section, investigations were opened in UK, Switzerland, and Germany which means that such allegations have their own credibility. However, to date, no investigation results announced by these countries.Cerevisae (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for Global Witness video, it definitely have links to Taib but according to two news reports MACC found no evidence of corruption because their found no proof that Taib has made the decision personally to award contracts/concessions to his associates. See here: Taib's son rich from gov't deals, but no proof of abuse and No proof of Taib power abuse as Sarawak ministers had approved land for his kin, say sources However, the 2014 Malaysian Insider newspaper said that "the investigation papers on the cases were still open as Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has directed the team to secure more solid evidence". This means that Taib has not been cleared by MACC and investigations still ongoing.Cerevisae (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cerevisae, Thanks I just saw this. This is not right since Wikipedia is not a repository for constant allegations. WP:SOAP clearly defines that opinion pieces and scandal mongering are not allowed. Also, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER states that information like this belongs on the sister project at Wikinews. Even when updating the content that shouldn't be there it never points out that nobody has been charged or convicted over these events. But the bias lies in the sources, as you and I know, Sarawak Report and Bruno Manser Fund should not be in the See Also section since they are agenda publications. They are most certainly of opinion and WP:BIASED. Now you and I may tend to agree with them but they are not in the Wikipedia spirit of the guidelines for WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SUBJECTIVE. We might not be fond of him but Wikipedia is not the place for our grievances. By the guidelines this needs to be removed or greatly diminished and presented in neutrality with neutral citations. Thoughts?--AhmedFaizP (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AhmedFaizP I had summarised and performed some clean-up on the controversy section. Cerevisae (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cerevisae, I appreciate it and will take a look.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version violates the guidelines even more and is very biased. As I mentioned, our grievances are for blogs, not for Wikipedia. The See Also needs to be removed. Completely biased sources, please see WP:BIASED. For the Controveries section, subjectively choosing "highly corrupt" is not for Wikipedia also. To make it easier to follow I will show the sentences and what guidelines they viloate.

Taib Mahmud was described as "highly corrupt" according to a series of leaked US embassy cables published in August 2011 - described by someone, regardless of position, is an opinion, see WP:FAPO

Taib Mahmud was reported to have full control of logging industry - same as above, no facts

This enabled him to use timber concessions for personal and family enrichment - accusation, unsourced, need facts from unbiased source, needs to be removed

He was responsible for accelerating the pace of logging in Sarawak - blaming one man for this is not feasible, saying he contributed, was in charge when it happened, that would be acceptable if worded with no ill intent

Taib was alleged to favour his family members in various business appointments in Sarawak - "alleged", not for Wikipedia, line needs to be removed

The companies which have relationships with the chief minister's family such as Cahya Mata Sarawak Berhad (CMSB), Naim Holdings Berhad, Sarawak Energy, Ta Ann, and Titanium Management Sdn Bhd has benefited from various state contracts/concessions/land dealings which were granted without public tender - there is a correlation, but again this an accusation, it is not what Wikipedia is for

The next paragraph is a rebuttle with very strong hints to say he is still guilty outside of convictions and another example of WP:BIASED. If there are no charges then there shouldn't be a discussion on Wikipedia. We need to hold Wikipedia to the high standard guidelines or we jeopardize the intergrity of what Wikipedia is.

The Personal Wealth section would need to be do for everyone on Wikipedia, even "green" billionaires [1], but talking about items in people's houses, piano's they didn't buy, all have sinister undertones and make this a violation of WP:ATTACK.

This line - Taib's daughter Jamilah and family members has been establishing real property estates in Canada, United States, and United Kingdom. Taib Mahmud admitted that his daughter owns properties in Canada and London but he denied that he has any business interests in his daughter's properties. - admits that it is an accuation, again see WP:ATTACK and is in the Personal Wealth, personal being Taib, his daughter does not belong in this section

The next paragraph starting with ...Bruno Manser Fonds has since disclosed that Taib and his immediate family... is coming from a biased and agenda based source, making it unreliable. I tried to find objective articles to justify it's inclusion but to no avail. As I mentioned I agree opinion wise but this is not for Wikipedia. It undermines the whole process of impartial facts which is what Wikipedia strives to be.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AhmedFaiz P, such issue not only appeared in blogs. It has resulted in several research studies by academicians namely: Faisal S Hazis, Andrew Aeria, Michael Lewin Ross, and Nelson Mersat and published by reputable publishers such as Cambridge University Press and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Cerevisae (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Cerevisae, I did not see this. Your latest additions are so one-sided and highly disappointing. As I said many times, I am not a fan of Abdul Taib Mahmud but I am a huge fan of Wikipedia and will not allow these abuses. You ignored all the guideline violations I pointed out and added selective content for what appears to be your agenda. I was hoping we could continue to work together on this. As I mentioned, blogs are not for Wikipedia, even if Allah himself wrote it. Opinions are not allowed, even if it is the great Andrew Aeria. No biased citations, no bias at all. I was encouraging you to take your agenda onto a blog and stop abusing Wikipedia for it. If you'd like to continue to work together let me know, otherwise I will submit this to conflict resolution.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AhmedFaizP, You are welcomed to submit this to conflict resolution. Wikipedia can have opinions included in its articles. It is up to the editors to represent both sides of the opinions equally. Besides, you quoted about WP:ATTACK. It is meant for a page where the majority of the page content are about the criticisms of that person. In this case, the "Controversy" and "Personal Wealth" sections only constituted a small fraction of the total article content. In WP:Biographies of living persons, under "Writing Style" section and "Balance" subheading, it said that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. For more details about this subject, you can use WP:Criticism. There is always some biases in newspaper sources or books. Yes, Bruno Manser Fonds may be biased, but what about The Borneo Post, The Star, and Sin Chew Daily? They are also biased towards the government. Some people accused that Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider biased towards the opposition. According to your logic, then everything should not be included in Wikipedia because they are biased. The job for Wikipedians is to include both sides of the sources and present them in non-biased manner. Cerevisae (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cerevisae, your criticism is not written conservatively and in a disinterested tone (the rule you just quoted above you contradict). You have created the most edits on the Wikipedia pages for Clare Rewcastle Brown, Sarawak Report and Bruno Manser by a huge margin. That is a conflict of interest. Balance is not presenting frivolous things like house décor and your recent additions of select quotes from the articles, plus completely ignoring the guideline violations that I pointed out and will have to remove myself. Comparing Sarawak Report to The Star is not even close. Find me one positive mention that Clare said about this subject? And since you are quoting Wikipedia guidelines I will remind you of #9 of the guidelines and that is that all articles in Wikipedia should be impartial in tone and content. Not dueling opinions and accusations.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and report it. Let somebody else to be the judge. If you remove both the two sections, the whole wikipage will be overwhelmingly positive to the person in question. You seems to have no problem with my additions on 2030 vision for Sarawak and The progress and development of Sarawak under his leadership and you believed everything Taib said. If I am so biased, I would not have included his responses on these accusations. Just report it to conflict resolution. I will give you the privilege to report it on Wikipedia conflict resolution. If you don't want, then I will help you to report it. No problem. Cerevisae (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cerevisae, I have no problem with that because that wasn't written with bias (promotional). I don't believe anything anyone says, even Clare. There is a clear distinction between facts and opinions/accusations. So no need to include his response to accusations since accusations shouldn't be there in the first place. You including that is offensive. You are saying a man from Sarawak, like myself, cannot afford these items and you are implying that the subject was able to do so by illegal means. Do you see my link to the "green" billionaires? I just did an image search for Clare, she seems to have a nice home, should I put that in her entry? No, it's absurd. Think of the casual reader. These items have no place in Wikipedia and we need to protect the integrity of it. So let's try a more simple approach. Based on what I just said let's try a couple of lines at a time.

Taib Mahmud was described as "highly corrupt" according to a series of leaked US embassy cables published in August 2011 - described by someone, regardless of position, is an opinion, see WP:FAPO. Some nameless faceless person said that. That is not Wikipedia worthy. That is for the Sarawak Report.

Taib Mahmud was reported to have full control of logging industry - same as above, no facts, it is an accusation. Keep the accusations away.

This individual is controversial, namely because of the accusations, but the way you created these 2 sections doesn't meet the guidelines. It's not for praising people or accusing them. It should be like an encyclopedia, dry and just the facts. --AhmedFaizP (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to publish Clare's residence photos if any news organisation mentioned about it, including New Straits Times of course. This meets the WP:Notability guideline. Most news organisation when writing about Taib, always mention about the issues in the Controversies and his Personal Wealth. Therefore, they should be included in this article according to WP:Notability guideline. These two sections sections originally occupies about half of the article space and now it is reduced to only a fraction of the article and you still not satisfied with it. You are dying to get it removed. Please take a look at the two sections now. I think it is much more neutral, but you still think it is bias and libelous. Remember that your view on whether the sections are neutral or not is also only an opinion. Why don't get it evaluated by a third-party? Cerevisae (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cerevisae OK, I will submit this to DRN. I would caution you not to use language like "dying to get it removed." Being that by a factor of more than 10 you have edited this page (I have done zero), you don't want to have COI submittal also. I have no dog in this fight like your passion against this subject and for Bruno Manser, etc. I have been civil, you should maintain the same. I'm just an ardent editor against soapboxing. And as you recall, I told you I don't like him but I love Wikipedia.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion question

[edit]

Would someone please concisely state what the dispute is? It's a little hard to figure out. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erpert blah, blah, blah... . The whole discussion is about the Controversies and Personal Wealth sections. We are debating what should be included, facts or allegations. Probably will make more sense once read the thread now. Thank you again.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Erpert. I felt that these allegations should be included in the controversies and personal wealth section because they are widely reported in newspapers and the researches by political academicians. However, for AhmedFaizP, he felt that all these allegations are only opinions and should all be deleted because he believed that Wikipedia should include only undisputed facts. He also felt that unless these allegations are proven in courts, otherwise these allegations would remain baseless and defamatory to the person in question. He also felt that sources such as Sarawak Report and Bruno Manser Fund are severely biased against Taib Mahmud and believed to promote a certain agenda. Therefore, he recommended that these two sources should also be removed. Cerevisae (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erpert left the 3rd opinion request listed, and it isn't clear if he intended to give an opinion after the dispute was clarified, so I will.
First, I see a lot more dispute in the section above than the two descriptions of the issue directly above. For example, I see claims of unbalanced selection of material and of unsourced facts. But I'll just give my opinion on the issue as described directly above.
Allegations are fine in a Wikipedia article. They just have to be clearly distinguished from accepted fact, must be notable, and must be accompanied by any notable contradiction. An allegation is notable if it is widely known, reported by other sources, or made by someone influential, among other things. The allegations here seem notable to me. Allegations aren't defamatory if presented as third party allegations - just embarrassing. (I guess it's obvious that Wikipedia itself can't make an allegation - it can only report the fact that someone else has). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback Bryan Henderson (giraffedata). I completely agree with the claims of unbalanced selection of material and of unsourced facts, but for the allegations this is an over simplification for this entry. We are talking about allegations from bias sources and that is just one issue we are asking for an opinion on. The Wealth section includes a piano purchase accusation that then says it is not true. Is that really necessary? Like you said before, it is all meant to embarrass. Like citing his house trimmings. Is that for the encyclopedia? In 10 years will that matter? But getting back to the excessive allegations belonging in Wikipedia an example would be for you in the USA, if I put President Obama is a socialist and wants to take all the rich people's money in his entry and sourced it to Glenn Beck, you and I know that would be taken off in a heart beat. We have the same situation here. Maybe this is a COI debate.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this subsection is strictly about the third opinion request. This third opinion request as originally stated was vague, but it was clarified above with a pretty narrow question about whether unproven allegations can be reported in a Wikipedia article in general. I can see why people would want to establish a consensus on that before going into more difficult questions of whether a particular allegation improves the article, so it's a good question. I can tell from the previous discussion that there are many other points of contention in this article, but third opinions have not been requested on them. There's nothing stopping interested parties from requesting opinions on these other points, though. A third opinion request does have to be simple - third opinion givers aren't supposed to wade into a 5000 word wide-ranging debate and start discussing. I think it would be a good idea, for example, to ask for an opinion on whether some particular allegation should or should not be reported in the article.
The Obama analogy makes me worry I wasn't completely clear about one thing: there is a world of difference between Wikipedia saying Obama is a socialist, with a footnote indicating Glenn Beck is the authority for that and Wikipedia saying that Glenn Beck has called Obama a socialist with a footnote indicating the New York Times as the authority for the fact that Beck did it. The former would not be acceptable ever; the latter might be in the right context. It's still a poor analogy because the idea of Obama being a socialist is a lot more vague than the allegations at issue here. A better analogy would be reporting that Glenn Beck said Obama was not born in the US (Several of Obama's adversaries have done so). The allegation is false, but the fact people have made it is still likely an improvement to an article on Obama. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the issue of piano purchase, it is not clear whether Far Eastern Review has published the "Correction" statement or not. I cannot verify that either. It is inserted by somebody else here. I can only assume good faith for the person who inserted this statement. The third party sources (Faisal S Hazis) does not seems to be aware of this "Correction" by Far Eastern Review. They cited only the article that talked about Taib's lifestyle. By the way, both Sarawak Report and Bruno Manser Fund have backed up their arguments with points and their arguments should not be discounted easily. Cerevisae (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Abdul Taib Mahmud. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 11:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abdul Taib Mahmud. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Abdul Taib Mahmud. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Abdul Taib Mahmud. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdul_Taib_Mahmud&oldid=1245548372"