Talk:Anwar Ibrahim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Resolved issues[edit]

Opposition leader[edit]

Anwar Ibrahim was and has never been an opposition leader technically and officially. The opposition leader at that time was Abdul Hadi Awang and the current opposition leader is Lim Kit Siang.__earth 22:26, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Corruption-fighter[edit]

Opinions if they are held by a good number of people are mentioned in an encyclopedia. The goal of the NPOV policy is to present all POVs regardless of their veracity or foundation in truth. This article presents just one of two widely held POVs about Anwar. Therefore, the article is POV. I have not disputed the facts already in the article, because they are facts. My issue with the article is that it omits other facts — the most notable one, I've already mentioned — Anwar did not become such a corruption-fighter until he was no longer hobnobbing with Mahathir and his cronies. I've avoided adding them because I can't think of a way to coherently insert this into the article. Yes, I am upset because my POV is not in the article, because my POV is the one held by several other people. I am not arguing that we tilt the article in favour of Mahathir and his gang's POV, but merely that we have facts and criticisms from both sides. For example, until I added the NST's report to the article, the article argued that Anwar's back injuries were suffered during detention. I added that the NST reported that Anwar suffered it from a fall from a horse in 1993. I didn't say whose is correct, because I don't know who is. That's what I'm getting at here. We need to present both sides' opinions equally. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anwar did not become such a corruption-fighter until he was no longer hobnobbing with Mahathir and his cronies
Add that into the article if you have the facts or citation of opinion of a significant group. -- sabre23t 15:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I put a sentence about it in. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correctly seguing material into the article[edit]

Just now I had to shift a couple of paragraphs in the article around, because they were in the wrong section. I doubt that the result of Anwar's corruption appeal has anything to do with his back treatment in Munich, though perhaps I'm just not getting the connection here. Likewise, can the parties concerned please update the article appropriately when adding new material instead of tacking it onto the end? I had to rewrite a paragraph about Anwar's corruption appeal pending, to make sense when we already have another parapagraph about the "pending" appeal being rejected. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

About three paragraphs of the article were taken from this page. We have sufficiently reworded the paragraphs concerned so that it no longer applies, but just letting you guys know... Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games[edit]

I removed this from the article: Although the government had spent a large sum of public money to host the Commonwealth Games, journalistic attention, both international and local, swiveled to focus on Anwar Ibrahim and his fledgling reformasi movement. The Games did not recover from the lack of attention and, till today, the financial accounts of the games are still a state secret protected under various security laws.

What exactly is this supposed to mean? How is it relevant? I remember the accounts have been in the news lately, but how is this relevant to the article? If one can argue that Mahathir's views of Anwar are relevant only to his page (highly dubious, but...), how is this relevant to this article? Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No dispute here, I think. Moving to resolved. I guess you can move those points to somewhere in 1998 Commonwealth Games. Mmm, I've been snapping pixs of all those expensive statues of CG98 logos around towns, the fallen one near KLIA, the faded one in Klang. Is there one you know that's still in good condition? -- sabre23t 23:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The point here is that Anwar made bigger press than the comonwealth games which was pretty much not what the government wanted and definitely not what the sponsors of the games wanted. Cannot think of a more specific example of how to write "this was front page news" to the exclusion of almost anything else. We can either put a POV statement like this was front page news or show how millions of RM was spent to publicize another event yet the publicity failed to take away the headlines.....your choice --Malbear 01:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pending issues[edit]

"Reformasi" not included[edit]

Oh, yeah, and the article never mentions what reformasi (economic and political reforms) is supposed to be, exactly. Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard a clarification from Anwar or Keadilan. They talk about reforming the government, but what Anwar did was just giving in to the IMF's demands. At the very least, Mahathir's and the government's excuses could be provided. Also note that Anwar has his own cronies, or at least is believed to, so this point of view should be presented as well. [1] Johnleemk | Talk 13:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps "reformasi" is best handled in a page marked "reformasi". You rightly mention that there seems to be so many issues under the reformasi banner (figuratively) and perhaps its best that this is not handled here for topicality reasons. Furthermore I think the contention is that the supporters of Anwar found "reformasi" to be their battle cry. Don't worry, it costs nothing to start a new page and I'm sure many of the same crowd here will be there to help you out. --Malbear 13:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anti-cronyism[edit]

This page seems rather biased in favour of the view that Anwar was a supporter of human rights, etc. but he was generally just as bad as Mahathir. He had his own cronies, and was just as corrupt as Mahathir was. I don't have any sources, so feel free to refute me, but this article doesn't quite capture the viewpoint of people who don't think so highly of reformasi. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the article should talk about anti-croynism. Anwar himself has cronies and saying Anwar as croynism is hypocritical. __earth 19:26, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

the sentence should read Anwar himself has cronies and saying Anwar as anti-croynism is hypocritical. __earth 06:06, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry? Am I the only one who does not understand this sentence? I believe the point being made here is that there are some who would contend (me included) that although Anwar was an anti-cronyism/nepotism etc crusader in his final years, this was not so earlier in his career. However, someone has to make a case of this and weave it into the article. Hopefully Johnlee can come up with something for this. --Malbear 03:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've placed a sentence about it in the article.

Mahathir looking bad[edit]

"Many Malaysian companies were facing the threat of bankruptcy, but Anwar declared: "There is no question of any bailout. The banks will be allowed to protect themselves and the government will not interfere." Anwar was an advocate for a pro-free market approach sympathetic to foreign investment and trade liberalization, whereas Mahathir favored currency and foreign investment controls."

This paragraph number makes Anwar seem somewhat like a rebel leader with him being everything right and Mahathir being everything wrong. Anyways, Mahathir tactics in the financial crisis did prove to be the correct ones as he lead Malaysia into a prosperous country.--Andylkl 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Notably, the article doesn't say what happened in the wake of the course Mahathir steered for the Malaysian economy. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted It appeared as if Mahathir was strengthening his control over the party and making moves against Anwar. Wikipedia is supposed to offer fact from NPOV, not some extrapolated event to suit one's view.__earth 20:46, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

It is acceptable to include the quote in the article if we could find some public figure who made that accusation, or a major news organisation which said that, instead of leveling the accusation ourselves. However, it seems Malbear would be in favour of putting that on the public figure's or news organisation's article, since apparently what Mahathir said of Anwar isn't relevant to this article. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lay off of workers[edit]

Remove line ", and many more had been forced to lay off workers in droves". It was exactly to avoid lay offs that the government pumped money into the failing conglomerates. 10 billion RM to avoid 10,000 lay offs. That's 1 million per employee. Anwar was very against the profiligate waste of your EPF funds and your tax ringgit for this purpose and this is where Halim Saad (later discredited by the same government), Daim Zainuddin (Halim's godfather) etc. were very very against the whole idea.--Malbear 02:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Mahathir doctrine for economic recovery[edit]

Removed the following "Mahathir believed that the development of Malaysian-owned businesses and local industries took a higher priority than that of untrammelled open competition; particularly in light of South Korea's experience after it accepted IMF conditions where significant portions of Korean industry ended up in foreign (largely American) hands."

Do we have any evidence (can we cite any source) that this is what Mahathir believed? I think we can ipso facto post what he did. However believes and state of mind need to be carefully balanced. Also the post about the South Korean recovery is very very badly informed. Someone needs to do some research and clean that up as well. AFAIK, the South Korean recovery was a result of the breaking up of the chaebols, the deregulation of various industries, the injection of foreign capital (which does not necessitate a gratuitious anti american off handed remark) both American and European. It's not a simple issue we can link in simplistically in one sentence.--Malbear 02:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That Mahathir was a protectionist is clearly established. See Mahathir bin Mohamad and Asian values. The South Korean bit is unclear, but it's definite that Mahathir did believe that protecting Malaysian businesses was more important than allowing them to collapse under the strain of a free market. Johnleemk | Talk 07:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually what we perhaps can find commong ground on is "Mahathir believed that the development of Malaysian-owned businesses and local industries took a higher priority than that of untrammelled open competition". However, I do not agree with the phrase "Malaysian owned business". Perhaps "businesses owned by his circle". Many companies were in fact allowed to fail while Folks like Halim Saad and Tajuddin were bailed out. As for the South Korean bit we need more evidence methinks. --Malbear 06:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you want to put that into the article, you'll need to give specific examples of companies as big as those these guys held that weren't bailed out. As for Korea, I don't know Mahathir's opinions, but there's sentiment that the IMF didn't really help out much. [2] [3] [4] [5] Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think thats necessary in an Anwar article. Perhaps in a more exhaustive article about the crisis/recovery (have we actually recovered?). The point is that Mahathir and Anwar had different views on the plan to sail out of the crisis. The Korean thing was gratuititous anyway and we cannot actually link it with Mahathirs decision. Regarding the Korean recovery it wasn't really an IMF effort as opposed to more a restructuring effort on the part of the government to allow large but diseased chaebols to fall. http://wfile.fss.or.kr/data1/en/nws/hjl1026sf.html

The section in the article which references Ibrahim's relations with the IMF (Anwar_Ibrahim#Financial_crisis) seems rather POV. There are many who believe that Malaysia was spared much greater suffering, because Mahathir stood up to the IMF -- compare what happened to Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines. I think it would be fair to say in the article that much opposition to Ibrahim stems from the perception that he was a tool of foreign interests, who sought to use IMF policy to loot the Malaysian economy. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Hoagland's offer[edit]

Why was the following removed?

Hoagland had offered his services for free, claiming the procedure would cost 15,000 euros under normal circumstances. Hoagland had been flown in by Anwar's family in 2001 to examine him while in prison. Johnleemk | Talk 07:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was removed since the same sentence is stated one paragraph prior to that. the repetition is quite unecessary (if this is resolved enough for you kindly remove this entry) --Malbear 06:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ops Lallang[edit]

This is mentioned in the article, but no background and/or context was provided. Johnleemk | Talk 07:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kindly begin page on ops lallang. Will pitch in some personal info as some of our personal friends were "swept up". Would like to see a neutral framework before working in bits of personal experience. --Malbear 06:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sex Videos Allegation[edit]

I wonder since the sex video were never proved as Anwar Ibrahim (its only a wild allegations and assumption), should the section be removed or shortened? It may appear big news in the media but is it really cause an impact to his career?--Mrpresidentfaris (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Political views[edit]

The article needs a clearer picture of his political position on major issues. At the moment, the persecution dominates, and details of his actual views and positions are lost in the chronological approach. 219.79.198.75 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Governmental years[edit]

This page is really not balance in term of information. The governmental years is brief and only in one section while his career as opposition members is so detailed and long. I hope some could help in seeking information about his early years and squeezed his latter career as opposition leader since his political career in government is almost as long as his opposition career.mrpresidentfaris (Talk) 2:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Seven votes for remove (Mkativerata, Johnuniq, Rhododendrites, Collect, Hijiri88, SamuelDay1, Fraulein451), two votes for keep (myself, Keithbob), two votes for keep but at reduced length (Cwobeel, Coretheapple), and a couple of comments that don't fall neatly into any of the three main positions. I'd assess the consensus as 'remove', and leave the article as it is right now. Closing. Banedon (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a section on the allegations that Anwar was in a sex tape in 2011 be included in the article? Arguments for and against can be found in the section above on this talk page, and at the relevant section of the dispute resolution noticeboard. Banedon (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose inclusion. The core argument in favour of inclusion is that the allegations have been covered in newspapers. That's nowhere near enough. This argument misses the point: that coverage of an allegation in sources is the minimum requirement for inclusion. Our BLP policies, including but not limited to WP:BLPGOSSIP require us to exercise editorial judgement about the nature of the allegations, the extent to which they have been proven, the extent to which they are germane to the subject's public life or are merely private scandals, and their relevance and noteworthiness. That being the case, a number of facts need to be outlined here:
  1. The most that has been alleged is that the person in the sex tape may be Anwar Ibrahim. In other words, the man may bear a resemblance to Anwar. Anwar and his family have consistently denied it is him.
  2. The sex tape was released to the Malaysian media by three men. Two are former United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) politicians; the other is an UMNO-linked businessman.[6] UMNO is Malaysia's governing party; Anwar is the opposition leader, having left UMNO, rancourously, in 1998. The sex tape was released to the media shortly before an anticipated general election.
  3. The allegation is that the sex tape was "hidden". If the subject is Anwar, the tape was, obviously, filmed without his consent and possibly involved the commission of a criminal offence.
  4. The allegations received air time in the Malaysian mass media (eg [7]). But they stopped short of actually alleging that Anwar was the man in the tape. Further, the Malaysian mass media is, by any objective standard, sympathetic to UMNO and unsympathetic to Anwar (source, in case anyone needed it to support the bleeding obvious). We should not genuflect to their editorial judgement in publishing the allegations. A genuinely unbiased and careful media environment would have seen a different approach.
  5. The allegations received some limited coverage in international press (example). However, this coverage was not in the context of "a credible and relevant allegation has been made". It was in the context of "look at the state of Malaysian politics". As the Wall Street Journal said (linked above), in Malaysia "Claims of sexual impropriety often overshadow policy debate", and "Many such allegations have targeted Mr. Anwar". The sceptical nature of the coverage in international media actually demonstrates why Wikipedia should exercise extreme caution. Again, it is absolutely not a case of "it received coverage so we must included it".
  6. Anwar's elected political career has lasted over 30 years. He has been a Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Opposition Leader. Coverage of this transitory and salacious matter in his biography is out of all proportion to his overall life.
  7. There is no suggestion that the allegation relates to any impropriety as a politician or any criminal activity. It is purely sexual.
Personally, I'm no fan of Anwar. But Wikipedia should not fall into the trap of repeating scandalous and irrelevant sexual allegations against a living person, especially in the factual context outlined above. Our duty as an encyclopaedia, as outlined in our fundamental BLP protections, requires us to do better. Wikipedia has never just repeated what the newspapers say. We shouldn't start now. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No. If an allegation is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article then it should be covered regardless of the veracity of the claims. As that does not apply, the issue concerns whether the allegations have encyclopedic importance because not everything that is verifiable is included in an article. A biography is not the place to record every allegation made against a person—no source does more than claim the video shows someone with a "resemblance" to Anwar, and no source suggests there will be any investigation or other outcome against Anwar. Per WP:NOTNEWS an article is not a repository for ephemeral news-of-the-day, and per WP:BLP an article is not available as a permanent memorial for an attack. If a notable person had made the allegations, the issue could be explored in their article, but nothing about this case has any enduring effect. The situation can be re-evaluated in the future if further developments show encyclopedic significance. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per basic WP:BLPGOSSIP - the sources don't seem to say anything beyond there being a sex tape of someone who looks like Ibrahim --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a tabloid, nor ought we ever inflict harm on a living person absent strong sourcing. Right now, it appears that the possibility of harm must outweigh our desire to be "complete". Collect (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That there are no sources that explicitly claim it is Anwar in the video is to be expected, since it is almost impossible to prove the person is guilty as charged without an admission, and responsible journalists will therefore not claim that Anwar is the person in the video. That the Datuk T trio are all UMNO-linked and the mainstream media is biased against the opposition is not really relevant; without conclusive facts we cannot and should not conclude either way; omitting the section is essentially a conclusion that Anwar is not the man in the video. It's because the known facts are inconclusive that the original write up listed it as an allegation, not fact. That the way the film was procured may not be legal is not relevant in a court of law and shouldn't be relevant on Wikipedia either. That the international press thinks the allegations are skeptical should be included as such in the article ("International sources do not think the allegations are credible" or something like that). While it's arguable that the section if included would be disproportionately overweight the significance that section deserves, that is not an argument to not include the section entirely—it is an argument to expand the other sections. And finally the section would provide context either way. If Anwar is the man in the video, then the allegations should be reported; if he is not the man in the video, then allegations would provide context that he is the victim of a government-linked smear campaign.
Given that the sources are reliable, the deleted content reported what the sources said fairly and that the incident was judged significant enough for multiple newspapers (including international ones) to cover, I do not think the section violates BLP:GOSSIP, and should therefore be included. Banedon (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned here by bot. Oppose inclusion as it appears to be an unproven smear that didn't get much mileage. However, if it has repercussions in the future then it has to be included. Support inclusion, but not at the length in the diff provided at top. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I've reconsidered per below. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi User:Coretheapple and thank you for your comment. I'm not sure if you had time to examine all the sources. The alleged event occurred in 2011 and is one of several "scandals" that have plagued his career and created controversy. It has been discussed in almost 50 news articles (see below) and was not minor 'news of the day'. Also, Ibrahim was imprisoned this month, after being found guilty of an unrelated, Malaysian sex crime. This may or may not effect your position but I thought I'd mention these points for you to consider.-- KeithbobTalk 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh it certainly does potentially change my view. I have to run out. I'll give it further thought and examination upon my return. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion of the content that was removed by this edit. This removed content summarized the "allegations" and the controversy surrounding them including Anwar's denials. This information was reported in more than 35 news articles and should not be censored. These reliable sources include:
  1. The Wall Street Journal
  2. The Economist
  3. Indo-Asian News Service
  4. Associated Press [8][9] [10]
  5. The Star [11][12][13]
  6. Free Malaysia Today [14][15][16][17][18][19]
  7. Malaysia Kini
  8. Hindustani Times [20] [21] [22][23] [24][25] [26][27] [28][29][30]
  9. New Straits Times [31] [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]

This list is not exhaustive there are at least a dozen more articles that appeared in the New Straits Times and the Hindustani Times but I got tired of cutting and pasting the URLs.-- KeithbobTalk 21:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob:I think you raise a valid point. I guess the question is whether this was a flash in the pan. It's been four years now. What became of this? It smacks of a transitory tabloid frenzy, but if it isn't I will certainly reevaluate my thoughts on this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Personally, I wouldn't consider the above sources tabloids and the coverage and controversy was intense and went on for several months. WP:GOSSIP says: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. In my view the sources are reliable and the controversy relevant. But each may have their own view. Thanks for taking a second look. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 21:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You do realise, don't you, that the Star and the New Straits Times are both stridently anti-Anwar? Did you look carefully through all those links? I'd hate to think that you didn't, with a living person's reputation on the line. If you did read the links, in how many of them is it shown that these allegations had any more relevance to Anwar's biography than as a transient sensationalist story? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Point of note, even excluding The Star and New Strait Times—both major newspapers in the country despite the anti-Anwar slant—there are still at least seven different newspapers that reported the allegations. I don't see what else the newspapers could have said either. What more did you think they should have said for the allegations be included: to claim that Anwar is / is not the man in the video? How can a responsible journalist say that without proof? Banedon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Include a passing mention in Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials as part of an 'Aftermath' section at the end of the article that briefly summarises his activities after the trials. This is the same kind of sexual smearing and can be dealt with in the same place. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The latest sodomy trial ended only a few weeks ago, and as far as I'm aware, Anwar is currently in jail. His "activities after the trials" then are simply being in prison. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this can be done. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a passing mention of the controversy, given the abundance of sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLPGOSSIP but also to counteract possible negative effects of User:Keithbob violating WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:CANVAS by following up User:Johnuniq's earlier, perfectly good and neutrally-worded BLPN posting with his own new thread about how ""sourced content" is "being excluded from the article". Poor show. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sorry, but everything in your personal attack is incorrect:
    • WP:RFC says:" To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
    • My comment at BLPN was a neutral summary of the RfC. " regarding sourced content that is being excluded from the article due to BLP concerns". I did not say whether I was in support or opposition of those BLP concerns.
    • User:Johnuniq's post not a neutral summary. It was an expression of his position. As it should be.
    • Please restrict your comments to matters of content per WP:TALK. I respect your position and thank you for participating in the RfC. Peace! -- KeithbobTalk 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)-- KeithbobTalk 17:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Hijiri 88 was referring to my notification at WP:BLPN on 20 February 2015, 3 12 days before your post which included the commentary "sourced content that is being excluded from the article" and an image. Nothing in Hijiri's post approaches a personal attack. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Don't want to wade into this—it is rather irrelevant with the subject at hand—but I suspect Keithbob didn't see Johnuniq's notification. I certainly didn't until I saw Hiriji88's post above. I think Keithbob's comment is slightly non-neutral; calling the removed text 'sourced content' gives it an air of legitimacy that 'content' doesn't convey. On the other hand Hiriji88's comment is a clear personal attack. Everything after the first three words is a criticism of Keithbob, and has nothing to do with Anwar or the sex tape. As Mkativerata said, This is not what a better editor than I would say. Now let's show some maturity and stay on topic. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
          • That has some sound advice, but "personal attack" should not be unchallenged. A weak case could be made that Hijiri's remarks are somewhat off-topic (like several others including this!), but there is no way that WP:NPA includes anything like the comment above—the mistaken claim of a "personal attack" is itself a personal attack on Hijiri (see WP:ASPERSIONS). WP:NPA has nothing to do with the comment above; in the same way, WP:CENSOR has nothing to do with this RfC and no censorship is proposed. I said "weak case" because it is perfectly acceptable to alert participants in an RfC know that an inappropriate notification may have been used. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Okay, I provided just as much content-rationale for my !vote as most other people (WP:BLPGOSSIP), but I also thought it was necessary to draw attention to the fact that Keithbob's post was inappropriate. I admit it's possible (in fact probable, in light of his response to me above) he didn't see Johnuniq's earlier notification, but the wording he used is likely to bias other users in favour of inclusion. I saw his wording at was initially inclined to think Keithbob was actually arguing against inclusion here, and had gone too far in an attempt to check his own bias when posting a notification on BLPN. I find it disturbing to see that he not only had not made any attempt to check his own bias, but is actually arguing that his post was not unbalanced and has called my characterization of such a "personal attack". Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Although there are many sources detailing the sex scandals involving Ibrahim and other Malaysian public figures, I am having difficulty finding international sources that mention this 2011 sex tape. Before we discuss including it here (and to what extent), there should be a source in the international media. --Precision123 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
See the list given by Keithbob above, citing several well-known international news sources. Banedon (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLPGOSSIP. It is not clear whether it was him involved or not. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oposed (WP:BLPGOSSIP) This remains unclear and sounds too much like tabloid and not encyclopedic. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anwar Ibrahim. 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.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)