This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Malaysia C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia-Today not a formal reference source? It has a track record of almost perfect credibility over the last 4 years in operation. Would you rather everything be cited from UMNO controlled NST and other Malaysian mainstream media? All the controversies there are cited with sources. If you want it to be "balanced", then give a counter viewpoint, not delete it outright. This is not an UMNO controlled publication. --Axeman78 (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can the page be taken seriously if we put his name as "Najis" instead of "Najib". I've taken out all reference to Najis and inserted his proper name instead.

Also, I've taken out the controversy regarding his purported speech during the Operasi Lalang era. He never said what was alleged to be said. What happened was he delivered a speech at the assembly, and some of the audience raised banners referring to keris and blood. If the writer wants to put that fact in, then it will be okay i suppose, although i don't see the point except for tarnishing someone's image. The question is: is Wikipedia a platform to defame or libel someone, or to paint a really negative picture of someone? Shouldn't it serves as a balanced reference material?

And where are the discussions? What possible justification was there to change Najib's name to Najis, or refer to his wife as a lover of bollywood actors, or that he attended, I quote, University of Nottingham Forest football team? There is a mockWiki or comedyWiki if I'm not mistaken, and these kind of editing shd go there I believe.

Btw, i don't mind if you guys want to edit my post, but pls give the justification ok. Let's be civil about this, especially on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammir (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously "Najib Mongolia"? "University of Nottingham Forest Football Club"? Again, I've taken out many parts which really are the opinions of the writer e.g "his naming as successor of the PM as disastrous to the country". Guys, please put this type of opinion in your blog etc, not in Wikipedia please. Also, the controversial Operasi Lalang. The previous writer actually put what was written on the banners, citing Lim Kit Siang's blog. Please, since when does Lim Kit Siang blog constitute an authorized reference source. Similarly, I don't think Malaysia Today is a formal reference source.

Guys, pls try to omit some of the more defamatory parts ok. And please no stupid childish jokes. A nine-year old may find them funny. I know Malaysians don't have reputation for Seinfeld-like wit, but really this is bottom of the barrel stuff guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammir (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few weeks we having people delete references to Ops Lalang, the Mongolian murder (including the statutory declarations), the submarines / Sukhoi scandal, patrol boat scandal, etc. I don't know what these miscreants are trying to do, but to whitewash Najib's past and make him look like a saint. Enough is enough! If you delete without a single explanation, then its war. I call on all the editors to report all these idiots and get them ban. --Roman888 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ahh the article called a najib a barbarian. could we like just mention what he said and let the reader judge what he is, so i am deleting the barbarian part.- ZEldariod

Groups of anons from apparently different IPs are readding the content. I am reverting them, but if this continues, I may consider protecting the page from anonymous edits. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be totally removed in line with the wikipedia policy on the biography for living people. There is a few parts of this paragraph which is not in line with the policy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP

(i) Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, (ii)Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). (iii)An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". (iv) Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

Whether or not Najib did make that comment has been debated around for quite sometime already, so I guess it is fair enough to call it an exceptional claim. Here is what wikipedia says of 'exceptional claims.

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources.

The sources cited for this article are Asia Times, Malaysia Today, and Lim Kit Siang's blog.

Asia Times looks like an internet start-up, who openly advertises for people to write for their 'news site'. It is not even close to high quality. High quality, meaning, a news site like the Daily Telegraph or the New York Times. Besides that, this is an exceptional claim, so, Asia Times is obviously out of the question as a 'high quality source'. I do not think Atimes is in any way liable under any nation's law.

Malaysia Today is a self-published blog by Raja Petra Kamaruddin. He is known to publish unsubstantiated facts and articles. Some of his 'conspiracy theories' does turn out to be real, but many are just left as 'conspiracy theories'. Raja Petra Kamarudin writings are always questionable, and he is not a trained journalist who substantiate each and every claim he makes. So, I guess, Malaysia Today is NOT a 'high quality source'.

Lim Kit Siang blog is a personal blog. nuff said.

So, I guess it is highly justifiable to delete this paragraph, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.240.218 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last line on the paragraph regarding the succession plan between Najib and Abdullah as above is blatant hearsay, and should be removed.

There is no research or survey done regarding the acceptance of Najib as the next Prime Minister. Najib has strong UMNO grassroots support to be the next Prime Minister, while at the same time a number of people fear him. At best, Najib acceptance is currently a grey area, and it is best for the line to be left out as it has no credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.245.162 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been stupid UMNO goons who are trying their best to whitewash Najib's criminal record, from instigating race riots in 1987 to the involvement in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

Raja Petra and Lim Kit Siang's blogs cite references to plenty of source materials, and they have proven to be effective and reliable time and again. Same goes for Jebat Must Die. The blog links given have references to other reliable source materials.

Uneducated UMNO terrorists please keep out and stop shafting our beloved country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpf2019 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as have been written above, wikipedia policy on living people forbids from citing sources from personal blog. Please keep personal attacks out from wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.27.4 (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those blogs also happen to be alternative news sites, and compiled quotes and references from various sources. The blogs didn't prematurely derive a conclusion. Look at the content of the linked pages before making a conclusion, dumb ass. The race riots of 1987 was a historical fact that was widely reported. Go fuck yourself.

Can someone please ban this guy. If those personal blogs does cite references, please cite the original source. I would like to remind you again, the source should be high quality, in line with wikipedia's policy on the biography for living people. PLEASE KEEP PERSONAL ATTACKS AWAY FROM WIKIPEDIA. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.27.4 (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this explain why you opted for personal attacks in the article, Anwar Ibrahim (history)? There is a definite POV edit war here with articles related to Anwar Ibrahim and Najib Tun Razak. While I agree that there is a need for reliable and citable sources as per WP:Cite, I am not sure if the reverts done here are in good faith. I'll be posting a request for Semi Protection for this article until things cool down a little. - Bob K | Talk 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is done in good faith or not, that is another matter altogether. The article on Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister MUST have credible sources, otherwise you might cause wikipedia trouble. This paragraph should be removed, until those who wish to insert this paragraph have 'high quality sources'. This subject here should only revolve upon its authenticity, not me. Those who wish to protect this article from edits should protect it without that paragraph. Wikipedia might face legal action from the Deputy Prime Minister Office or the Government of Malaysia if that article remain, with its authenticity in doubt.60.51.116.149 (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is part of Wikipedia's policy. See WP:POV. - Bob K | Talk 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just because you think I am biased, that does not mean that you are allowed to publish facts with unreliable sources. The person who put in that article did it in bad faith, as he is trying to smear Najib's name by citing personal blog's as a source. THAT IS NOT RIGHT. I am biased, fine, ban me. That paragraph does not cite a credible source, remove it.

I am feeling you are biased as well, you, as well, prefer to smear Najib's name by publishing 'facts' from unreliable sources. That is against wikipedia's policy. Either you do nothing, or ban me, and remove that paragraph. You can't have the cake and eat it.!60.51.116.149 (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are procedures in Wikipedia regarding disputed facts and the disputed section has been tagged appropriately. IMHO, I found only 1 sentence and 1 paragraph in the section that would be questionable. The rest seemed quite well cited - Bob K | Talk 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole paragraph is rotten. Nothing in that paragraph is well cited, and that paragraph even calls Najib and his followers terrorist. Wikipedia is definitely going to hear soon from the DPM's office. hell, I have said this a million times, personal blogs CANNOT be used as a source, no matter how true or untrue a fact is. What a sad case, the anti-Najib brigade is on wikipedia. 60.51.116.149 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been re-written to state only the facts with the citations improved upon. Whether or not blogs can be used as a source or otherwise, WP:SPS has some guidelines. I do agree that the tone of the section was overwhelmingly POV, hence the edit. - Bob K | Talk 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you do not know, this article fall under here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

let me quote Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.116.149 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is moot. The section has been amended with citations to reliable sources and POV opinions exorcised. - Bob K | Talk 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. that's better. You do have better sources. I do not have time to verify it yet, but I will check it.;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.116.149 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these two or three disciples of Najib (say, Pasquale, is that you?), is that instead of discussing the issue, they outright delete any and every thing that factually points to negative attributes of Najib and UMNO. Their notion of reliable sources is anything limited to NST, Bernama, and Utusan Malaysia. If you look at the comments above, apparently Asia Times is not a "credible" publication, based on UMNO logic. Their actions here are a harbinger of what's to come under a Najib administration. Axeman78 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why wikipedia have such strict rules regarding sources is because facts that are not backed up with high quality sources would expose wikipedia to a lawsuit which it does not want to be in. What is true or what is not is another matter, the question here is whether do you have evidence to support your facts. Personal blogs are unreliable because it is costless to start one, and personal bloggers are usually not trained and ethical journalists. For example, if you present a fact which cites a personal blog, and can provide a counterclaim in no time.

Highly reliable sources like major newspapers cannot afford you produce unsubstantiated facts and material. It is costly for high quality sources to fake their facts, as when there is a counterclaim, it will usually end up in court or a retraction.

Asiatimes is an internet start up, I have tried to dig up further information about them, but failed. It is not a tried and trusted website, and it is probably one of the many internet news sites which is mushrooming all around. They are high reliant on internet ads, they advertise openly for writers, which puts a lot of doubt in the credibility of their organization. When wikipedia says high quality sources, they mean newsweek or The Economist, not an internet start-up whose employees can hardly even be called journalist.

ps- I'm on wikipedia, I look at Najib's page, I find facts which spoils his name, from sources which can hardly be called reliable.' Then I proceed to Anwar's page, wow, based on what I read, he's the Renaissance man. People here still have the audacity to call me bias, I'm just asking for reliable sources. those who disagree, stfuXmen24 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see UMNO goons trying to remove any references to the 1987 Rally. I'm confused, if UMNO prides itself on behaving like Nazis, then be proud of it. Why are you UMNO goons trying to hide the heritage of UMNO as a Nazi offshoot? You can't censor information that you think paints you in a less-than-positive light...unfortunately, the world is not UMNO's "tempurung". Axeman78 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I would say that most of this "article" about Mr Razak is written by someone is the Razak family or someone who works for the government. It is not accurate nor is it a a true history.[reply]

You guys can always try to be objective about this. Look that this bugger.

I still see UMNO goons trying to remove any references to the 1987 Rally.I'm confused, if UMNO prides itself on behaving like Nazis, then be proud of it. Why are you UMNO goons trying to hide the heritage of UMNO as a Nazi offshoot? You can't censor information that you think paints you in a less-than-positive light...unfortunately, the world is not UMNO's "tempurung".

Dear Axeman, I have bolded all parts of the article that was personal attacks. The next time you post, please leave them out. They do not add any value to your comment/opinion, etc. Please do be objective when giving your opinion, and please leave out personal attacks.Xmen24 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To comply with Wikipedia standard, all unfounded, unproven allegation must be removed. Some parties have been spreading lies without a shred of evidence. I was taken in once, but once bitten twice shy. Any allegation should be based and proved on hard fact. So many lies being projected as truth. Example, Raja Petra's Statutory Declaration, later Raja Petra’s counsel, J. Chandra, tried to insinuated that the article titled ‘Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell’ on April 25 under Raja Petra’s byline was posted without his consent or knowledge. This show the allegation is unfounded. So much for personal blog. http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=26286 Yosri (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You call this compliance with Wikipedia standards, when UMNO goons try to delete entire topics and articles without explanation. I hope to see it that we report and ban them from wikipedia altogether. Most of the allegations and controversies written about Najib have references from media and international sources. Its our mainstream media who are at fault with trying to paint a rosy picture of Najib as a saint.Roman888 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Malaysian IP addresses started with 60 and not 202... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.182.148 (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Najib's personal life and political career are summed up in the intro, but virtually the entire main body of the article (in eight full sections) is on controversies, the whole lot. It looks more like an attack page now than anything else, and, ironically, looks less creditable. Is the local media really that tight lipped on Najib? - Two hundred percent (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that it is ridiculous as our future Prime Minister as it is has plenty of controversies link to his career. This is a type of leader we are getting in Malaysia. Our local media is subservient to the government at the moment that it is tough to get a neutral point of view to expose the government's shortcomings or corruption within its ranks. If you have any past articles on Najib's political career, you are more than free to present it here. Roman888 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As an outsider (I'm an Australian, and ended up at this article through Radio National's "Asia-Pacific" program), I'd have to agree. There seems a lot of triviality and gossip in the controversies sections. Half the article seems to be about a murder trial to do with people in connection with Najib, but he has not seemingly been charged or indicted himself, so I am not seeing the point. I question whether Britannica would print any of this stuff. The odd bit is the bit I came to find out about - the by-elections this/last week - wasn't even mentioned. Orderinchaos 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno if [1] will be useful as a source. Orderinchaos 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Two hundred percent, I totally agree with you. This article is totally ridiculous because most of the body of this article is all about Najib's controversy. In fact, the Altantuya controversy alone is too long with its many subtopics. I do not see any point on why there should be a huge emphasis being put towards Altantuya when Najib himself was not even being charged. Actually I don't really like this Najib guy, but I feel this article is more like a personal attack rather than a biography. Most of the Altantuya section should be put inside the Altantuya Shaaribuu itself and not dumping everything in this article. - Hezery99 (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• But removing the whole section wholesale is an unwarranted action as well. I've reverted the content (which was removed without any explanation by the editor), and am now trying to edit the section down to only the parts where the subject was linked to the case. Feel free to help with the editing/summarizing process, but a wholesale delete without justification or explanation is threading the thin line of Vandalism.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. - Bob K | Talk 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm .. this title keeps coming up again and again. Is somebody that desperate to be designated? - Bob K | Talk 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to protect this page from anonymous edits. There's been a series of recurring edits that do not conform to Wikipedia's standards, both by supporters and detractors, that is turning this article into a joke. - Bob K | Talk 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He attended the Malay College? I think that's wrong. I know the BBC and Al-Jazeera wrote it too so but I am suspicious of the veracity of the claim. His cousin Hishamuddin however did attend the College and I suspect somebody got confused between the two. __earth ^(Talk) 11:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have a duplicate of this page: Dato_Sri_Mohd_Najib_Bin_Tun_Hj_Abd_Razak Dracunculus (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. __earth ^(Talk) 07:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this to the main article. Roman888 (User talk:Roman888) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I began a new section on what he's done since becoming Prime Minister. I hope others can contribute to this section as well to keep it updated and reduce the focus on his controversies to give a more balanced take on Najib.Wai Hong (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=) __earth ^(Talk) 06:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the American flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.215.32 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any other free licensed picture, do add. __earth ^(Talk) 14:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has Najib to do with the odelia pinot case? His silence is normal as he has nothing to do at all with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.16.82 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above a number of times, there's some editors who have been removing content either without a strong justification, or the removal does not justify the removal. Case in point, one whole section of the article regarding the subject's involvement in the murder case has repeatedly been removed, despite it being well sourced and referenced. I agree that the length of that section is somewhat disproportionate to the whole article, but to remove everything regarding the case to the extent that it is not even mentioned on the whole page is ridiculous. Case in point, I reverted the removed content (for which no reason for the previous removal was given by the [User:Another novice]]) only one day ago, and its been removed wholesale again the very next day with a single line that the article is turning into a [Wikipedia:Coatrack]].

I quote from the same article regarding how to deal with a Coatrack article:

"An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate. "

If you feel the attention given to the case is too much, shorten the section, even if it is only one paragraph with a link to the murder case. Or leave it over the weekend and I'll do some summarizing (its been a busy week in RL for me, meh). In my opinion the case is definitely passes the test for Wikipedia:Notability. So unless the article is so badly done that the whole Najib article has to be deleted....

When in doubt, refer to The five pillars of Wikipedia, especially the less experienced editors. Thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Policy on Biographies of living persons clearly states that questionable or poorly sourced material should be removed. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the editor adding or reverting the material in question.

The information you have reverted seems to be fringe in nature, poorly sourced, and definitely fails to maintain a neutral POV. Why should we keep it? Monkeyassault (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, the article only mentions the events as they happened without any POV language. Also, your point about it being poorly sourced is not true, considering the sources listed in that section included many reliable news sites such as Asiaone.com, Bernama.com, Channelnewsasia.com, Sinchew.com, bbc.co.uk. However, if you feel that some of the sources other than the news sites, do feel free to contest them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've summarized the section on the murder to only include items when the subject matter was involved and also restricted it to the more reliable news sources. Hope this solves the reliability/disproportionate length issue.Zhanzhao (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info that I have again removed is not verifiable. We went from having one source with a dead link and another that did not support the edit to having two sources that are offline and in French. Not only can I not access these sources but I can't find anything about Datuk failing to turn over papers to the court on any news site and I cannot find any news site that mentions Datuk's quote about being unable to oppose Najib. This stuff sounds like big news. It would be up in English on news websites if it really happened. Unfortunately, the best I can find are accusations on political blogs. Not good enough.

Before removing material due to your perceived notion of reliability, note that WP:RS exists for a reason. Use it. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Given the very dodgy history of this information, the lack of other corroborating evidence, and the policy given above I can't let your edit stand. I should also note that that the burden of proof lies with the person adding or reverting removal of controversial material in the biographies of living persons. I am open to argument but your edit as it is cannot stand unless you can give better evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyassault (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately". This is from the warning box we see whenever we edit the biographies of living persons.Monkeyassault (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letting me and everyone else have a look at the French sources you cite, providing other reliable sources, following the policy on foreign language sources above all have the potential to resolve this dispute in your favor but I am not just going to let you have this edit without justifying it.Monkeyassault (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally visiting the talk page after repeated notices. The 2 sources were printed newspapers and magazines, the sources of which I provided, included the publication name, date of publication as well as region the publication is made. Just because it does not have an online version does not mean it does not exists. If it helps, the journalist's name is Arnaud Dubus, and the newspaper article appears on pg 30, and the magazine article was actually as re-publish of the news article its just re-inforcement. As mentioned, if you question the reliability of the source, do feel free to post it up at WP:RS. Else, I've followed Wiki procedure as much as I could. its enough information for you to easily pick up the paper and verify it. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policy on foreign language sources cited above I want to see the original quote in French and I would like to know where this translation comes from. The quote comes word for word from political blogs with no NPOV. I can't verify this quote with any news service. Given that the trial in question has been covered in minute detail by the English language media I don't see how this could have been missed. I cannot easily pick up this paper and in any event I do not have to. The burden of proof is yours per the policy on biographies of living persons. Simply typing in the original quote and saying where the translation comes from will win the debate for you. Do that and I will let the this material in. Without good evidence I will revert per the requirement that poorly source material be "removed immediately".Monkeyassault (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you might get your wish. Just found a french-specific searchengine that allows me to find backdated french news articles easily. As a heads up, I've already found one of the original online article for the Liberation here [[2]]. You do already realize that we ARE allowed to quote non English sources where no English equivalent exists. [[3]]. Will update the article later I'm free (at work now). But that still does not excuse your initial removing material without 1st directing your attention to the talk page. I hope you learn from this. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zhanzho!

I looked at the article you have graciously posted and I can't find anything that resembles the quote. I just can't say when it comes to the rest of the information. I have a French speaker who might help me this afternoon. I will see what he says. In any event it would be great if we could find a pre-existing English translation. It would be more neutral and more transparent. I strongly disagree with you on the issue of talk pages and removing edits. If material in a biography of a living person is unsourced or poorly sourced we are supposed to remove it. In fact the splash page that appears when we edit even says and emphasizes this point with the word immediately. Deletes are also not permanent. We can always reach consensus and restore your material. I am not your enemy. I just want to clean up a lot of the really messy articles on foreign political figures. I think we can all agree that this article is problematic and can work to fix it.Monkeyassault (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your removal of the contents of certain sections of the article. There were some instances where you removed material that has been properly sourced and reference and you justified that with NPOV argument. Please note that should refrain from removing any more information from this article until you have gain concensus for the removal, which until now you have not. Being WP:BOLD is one thing, but censoring or deleting whole sections is just vandalism. Roman888 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not required to remove material that is non NPOV or otherwise violates WP policy. The policy on biographies of living persons clearly states that such material can and should be removed immediately.Monkeyassault (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong there in that NPOV policy clearly states that information neither sympathises with the individual. Your blatant used of excuses such as COATRACKING and NPOV. Material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly. We are not here to paint a pretty picture of the individual which is what you are doing with the removal of whole sections of the article. Roman888 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing whole chunks of info, it would be better to merge or even shorten the presentation in a way that presents the facts without weighing the article down. That should get around COATRACK claims. In addition I feel that the Raja Petra should remain. It was after all news (regarding his imprisonment and claims he was forced to edit his blog) and hence created a related but different controversy. I don't think we want to create yet another subheading for Raja Petra just to go into it.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to challenge the COATRACK claims that were made just to make an excuse to remove whole chunks of the article. Much of the information given come from credited news or media sources with references. I feel that they are using excuses such as NPOV and COATRACK just to whitewash some of the scandals and crisis of this individual. No proper discussion before the removals were done which has let us to this situation. Roman888 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have stated in the past that no concensus was made by certain individuals when it came to removal of whole sections of the articles. They have not properly justified the removals or discussed it properly in the talk pages here. Here is where we should take a hardline with them and revert their removals as what they are doing borders on vandalism - WP:VANDAL Roman888 (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've undid the content removal on the murder yet again. The alleged claims of COATRACK and WP:BLP is no excuse against non-NPOV editing, especially when no details are given. The version here is already heavily edited down and summarised. As already mentioned, the last 2 paragraphs below might actually have existed as a separate subsection to the murder section, yet I've already attempted to merge and shorten it such that everything fits in one single section of short length. Merely stating that it is a COATRACK is a vague defense to a full removal of the content as it was, and NPOV is definitely in question here if the only material allowed here work in defense of one party while opposing information keeps getting edited out. I would also question why the parts of the opposition faking the photo are not removed, since by the same logic given by the content-removing editor, it is superflous detail that should only belong to the main article as well.

If you wish to remove the content claiming it is COATRACKING, debate it here first. Or else this WILL be raised to the next level. In the event of that, I would draw the attention of any admins or editors to check the full contribution history of Monkeyassault during investigations when this gets escalated. Good WP knowledge should always be tempered with good and fair WP etiquette. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a very fair minded guy but I strongly disagree with you. COATRACKING is not an excuse. I think it is pretty clearly happening here. Dumping in every allegation, no matter how dubious, in an attempt to tar the reputation of someone pretty much fits COATRACKING to a T. I know we are supposed to assume good faith but if you read the comments on this discussion page some editors have simply disavowed good faith and are out to tar Najib. I am not looking to whitewash anything. I just want allegations to be well sourced, non-fringe, non-tangential, and placed in context. If we allow any allegation made about a political leader that is reported in any media outlet, no matter how outrageous the claim or how disreputable the source, then every WP article on political figures will turn into a stream defamation. Why don't we start posting proposed edits here and talking about them and then submit them after we reach agreement? We seem to disagree on many points but I think we can also find many ways to improve the article that are not controversial. What do you think? Monkeyassault (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to paint a pretty picture of an individual but to put out all the facts in the open. Your creation of dubious excuses of COATRACKING and NPOV to remove wholesale sections of the article to fit your whim have practically destroyed this article. You may deny whitewashing, you simply have destroyed this article. All the sections were well-sourced and referenced, yet your excuse was to simply put these into "context", which was an excuse to whitewash whole sections. Sorry if you thing allegations regarding political figures are a no go, but have you see articles regarding President Obama, President Bush, Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The issues is not whether we should discuss proposed edits, but the removal of wholesale sections of the article since you started editing here. Whether its controversial or not its not up to us to decide. I already have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard, and they have decided to freeze this article until a consensus is made. For the last time, your disruptive edits have destroyed this article. Roman888 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few main areas we are to discuss are - Anwar Ibrahim sodomy scandal (the accused meeting with Najib), 1987 Kampung Baru scandal, Murder of Altantuya Sharibuu (Bala's statutory declaration linking Najib to the individual). Until we have come to an agreement this article is frozen from further editing. Roman888 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman888 adding these sections to the murder section seems to be a very clear attempt to coatrack. Putting undo weight on a topic is in and of itself POV. The edit that I implemented on this section today was fair, compete, and NPOV. I am reverting your edits and bringing this to the attention of others.Monkeyassault (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged Destruction of Evidence After the murder of Altantuya, Datuk Syed Abdul Rahman Alhabshi the honorary consul of Mongolia in Malaysia contacted Shaaribuu Setev, her father. When Datuk Said asked Shaaribuu for all documents, especially pictures, notebooks, films, computer files that could help with the murder investigation, Shaaribuu did not hesitate. He gave Alhabshi everything he had found in his daughter apartment in Ulan Bator. Alhabshi kept the documents for himself, not giving them to the court in Malaysia. “We thought he was working for us, but actually he is working for the Malaysian side”, says Shaaribuu with bitterness. Altantuya’s father then asked the Mongolian foreign ministry to dismiss Datuk Said from his position as an honorary consul. The ministry then summoned the diplomat in Ulan Bator to ask him to explain his behaviour. To justify his attitude, Datuk Said has said to Shaaribuu “Given my high position within Umno, it is not possible for me to oppose Najib Razak”. [108][109] [edit]" This entire section is sourced by a reference to a personal blog. This is a clear violation of the BLP and must be deleted.Monkeyassault (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"French Newspaper Liberation The French newspaper Liberation claimed that Najib Razak had indeed met with Altantuya, who was the mistress of Abdul Razak Baginda, his close aide and associate, in Paris in 2005. It mentioned that a photograph was allegedly taken showing the three in a Paris nightclub.[99] The Liberation also suggested that Abdul Razak had been Najib’s intermediary for arms purchases. In October 2006, the newspaper claims that Altantuya was informed that the commission paid by Armaris, a Spanish company involved in Malaysia’s acquisition of three submarines for one billion euros (RM4.7 billion), had been deposited in a bank account in Malaysia. The commission of 114 million euros was allegedly paid into the account of Perimekar, a company Razak controlled. Altantuya then allegedly flew to Kuala Lumpur to demand her share of the commission, which was to have been US$500,000. [100][101]"

This is excessively detailed and appears to be another attempt at coatracking. Najib is the subject of the article. There is another article on this murder where this info can be posted if it is appropriate at all. Also, the Malaysia Insider is a POV publication edited by Raja Petra. It is only a reliable source in terms of spelling out the views of Raja Petra. We can't have it used as a source to support this section. Once again, this info has already here in condensed form and I see this as an attempt to smear the subject of the article by excessive focus on negative issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyassault (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear agreement whether it is coatracking. Najib is the subject of the article but his tenure as Defense Minister has brought up a lot of issues including the murder investigation, trial and the number of evidences that ties to the individual. It would be better to put the information in this article until further notice. Roman888 (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy does not require consensus to remove this material. Please respond specifically to my comments above.Monkeyassault (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where you are sadly mistaken. Rather than take a direct approach in removing material you should seek consensus from other editors. I will address your comments later in the next few days as I am currently busy with other commitments. Rest assured they will be addressed. Roman888 (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. " This quote is from the warning box at the top of the page and is a nice summation of what the BLP policy says. Immediately is pretty specific. When material is poorly sourced and negative in a BLP it has to go. Monkeyassault (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the Liberation section is excessively detailed, edit it down. Don't delete it wholesale as mentioned before. As for Raja's POV blog, the text in the article specifically states that Raja is the some making the claims, as it is not stating it as if it were a fact. There are news reports which include said claims when reporting on the reason he is being sought out for. The claims he made is widely reported. In any case, please avoid Wikilawyering. Rules are meant to be following in the spirit of wikipedia, not merely as a literal intepretation. It might be a good idea to get a neutral party like NJA to look at it, or even get this page under protection again.Zhanzhao (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my arguments should be engaged on their merits. My concerns are real and significant.

The claims made by Roman888 in this edit are already in the article in some form or another. Also, the subject of this article is Najib not the murder. There is no need to do a blow by blow analysis of this scandal in such minute detail. We especially do not need it with POV and poor sourcing. If this edit belongs in WP at all it should go in the article on this murder and it should be NPOV and well sourced.204.74.208.194 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s go through the sources for this edit one by one. DAP Malaysia is a political party. There site is by definition POV and cannot be used as a reliable source in this context. The Malaysia Insider is a POV publication edited by Raja Petra, a leading opposition figure and a political enemy of Najib. This is also a very POV opinion article. Also not a reliable source. Finally, look at Jeff Ooi at the Asian Correspondent. First, this is a blog post and thus unreliable for our purposes. Second, the post specifically lists Wikipedia as the one and only source for the keris reference. This edit clearly does not meet the standards set out in the BLP and I have to remove it.Monkeyassault (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally you have come to your senses and decided to discuss on the issues and gain some consensus. I disagree with your censorship and whitewashing of the article as you failed to prove that they do not meet the standards set out in the BLP There are more than 2 sources which you have mentioned. Rather than delete and whitewash the whole thing you should instead sat down and gone through all the reference sources. You do not even have the consensus to remove the articles. Roman888 (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed any articles. I have removed some of your edits here because they are not reliably sourced. Every single source for the edit in question here is very, very problematic. See my comment above and please respond to its contents. I am reverting your edit. No consensus is necessary to do so per BLP.Monkeyassault (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment about the removal of material and whole sections of the article, it would be better if you seek consensus first. You say its problematic but you failed to realise that many of the material has been well-sourced, reliable, notable and of journalistic content. Rather than finding every single fault with all the sources, you should come to a middle-ground and discuss it without removing it roughshod. I will later address your comments point by point when I have the time.Roman888 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAP is a political party. POV. The Malaysia Insider does not have a reputation for reliability or fairness. in fact it is edited by Raja Petra, a key political enemy of Najib. POV. Jeff Ooi is posting on a blog. POV and not a reliable source. Also, he specifically states that his only source for the Keris reference is Wikipedia. How can you use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia? Not really a middle ground here. Sorry.Monkeyassault (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Malaysian Insider is not edited by Raja Petra. Raja Petra edits Malaysia Today. Get your fact right. __earth ^(Talk) 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to highlight the inaccurate interpretation and application of WP:NPOV policy. What is supposed to be NPOV is how it is written in the article, not whether the sources are NPOV. Specifically, according to the policy, "It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view". __earth ^(Talk) 00:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue at hand. We simply cannot discount sources from the Malaysian Insider which by itself is a news portal. There were other sources that were provided that were not blog sites as claimed by Monkeyassault. Instead he used just pointed out 1 or 2 points and deleted the whole section which is unwarranted. Roman888 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV sources are very relevant. They are only reliable for sourcing the opinions of the author or media outlet. That is why the BLP policy strongly discourages the use of blogs as sources. 204.74.208.166 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking of material by User:Monkeyassault should not be restored. The material he blanked looks to a large extent to be copyright violations and plagiarism of the sources the material is attributed to. This content seems to have been added by User:Roman888 who has been indefinitely blocked for massive copyright violations and sockpuppeteering. I have no strong views about whether the content should be removed for POV reasons, although it does seem a bit too tagentially connected to Najib for my liking.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Mohd Najib bin Abdul Razak --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Najib Tun Razak. I did a brief survey of major Malaysian news outlets and that is the most commonly used name. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is only the Malaysian situation. Here actually, the international one applies. --119.94.194.193 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for naming conventions, I think it is quite proper to follow local custom. In any event, the BBC calls him "Najib Tun Razak" as well.[4] --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... off-topic: Don't you think that the Malaysian-Indonesian conflict from 1963 to 1966 can just be called simply "Konfrontasi" in the English wikipedia? It is easier and that term is acknowledged among western historians, too. Special local terms can be just applied here. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems such a proposal was put up five years ago but didn't get consensus to pass: see Talk:Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation#requested move. If you'd like to propose the move again (five years is a long time) I'd suggest doing so at Talk:Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support that? --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, I'd have to consider the arguments for and against because I'm not particularly knowledgeable about that aspect of Malaysian history. The proposal certainly got a fair bit of support last time so there's nothing wrong with re-proposing it. If you do decide to propose it again, consider posting a note at the talk pages of WP:Wikiproject Malaysia, WP:Wikiproject Indonesia and WP:MILHIST (without canvassing of course) to get some attention to the proposal. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the courageous step to make that proposal. We will see.... --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Najis might be a simple typographical error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.193.18 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed tthis section from the article. It is a poor attempt to smear the subject of the article (bear in mind I'm no fan of Najib) by associating him with a murder. The extent of the association is that Najib was associated with the man acquitted of the murder, and that he might have been photographed with him and the murder victim. This has absolutely no place in the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 paras mention that the acquitted was a close friend was a close associate of who was acquainted with the victim under an assignment by Najib. That then ties in with the points made that witnesses were allegedly under direct/indirect pressure by Najib to withdraw their statements and the courtcase was being hindered, as well as a special request being made for Najib to testify. Look at it this way. If there was no link he would not have been requested to testify. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of key points. First, the associate was acquitted, thus breaking any link between Najib and the murder. Second, there is no sourced content that suggests that Najib had any involvement in the conduct of the case. There are a lot of things that can be said about Najib that are negative. This simply isn't one of them. Let's focus on genuine criticisms rather than coat-racking sensational claims that destroy the article's credibility. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The associate was acquitted amidst claims of government hindrance/intervention, which the various sources point out were directed by Najib. 2nd, the victim was hired as a translator on a deal Razak was tasked by the Ministry of Defence to be working on, of which Najib was the head; the victim was attempting to blackmail Razak for the commission received on the same deal. That link remains true regardless of whether Raxak waas acquitted or not. Note that the article is not just about the murder, but about the victim's alleged relationship to Najib, so content not specific to the murder may still be included. If you think the article is too critical of Najib, you might follow the tone of this article [[5]] and practice WP:SOFIXIT. If you question the duplicity of the allegations made in the sources, explicitely state that those are allegations. However, removing the content wholesale would be whitewashing.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article is a good example. The specific mentions of Najib are as follows. (1) Junior opposition MP makes allegation that Najib was involved in the murder. Denied by Najib; MP suspended by speaker. Nothing more. (2) Najib's aide was acquitted of the murder. As above, this breaks any link between Najib and the murder. Where are the reliable sources claiming that Najib hindered the trial of Razak Baginda? There is absolutely no basis in reliable sources to link Najib to the murder: the article is making lame and embarrassing attempts to tarnish Najib by association. The section shouldn't be fixed. It should be whitewashed. Let's keep the article's attention on the real scandals like "bathe the keris in Chinese blood". --Mkativerata (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that the article itself does not agree with you about the lack of a link. "A FRENCH arms company is at the centre of a deepening scandal involving the sale of three submarines, the murder of a beautiful Mongolian interpreter and the man most likely to become prime minister of Malaysia next month. All three have been linked in a sensational sequence of revelations that has convinced many Malaysians that the woman was killed to silence her demands of a share in the rewards of the transaction.". As mentioned, the subsection's title was the victim's name, NOT the murder case, so info outside of the case but related to the 2 persons can be introduced. Do stop being fixated on the murder only. As per wiki policy, state the allegations, and then the counterpoints in an NPOV manner. Removing content wholesale is not constructive.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right so now the basis for including this in the article is Najib's association with the victim, not with the murder. A prominent politician has associations with all kinds of notable and controversial people. There is no basis for singling out this one. Again, it's just a reason to throw in scandalous material into the article without any real link to the article's subject. When scandalous unrelated material is inserted into an article about a living person to disparage the person we don't fix it, we delete it. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that it is unrelated, yet almost every news article about Altantuyaa inevitably mentions Najib. I could easily just point to PI Bala's first statutory declaration which explicitely points out Najib's involvement with the case (specifically mention of smses which says he will help Razak take care of the matter). Though the declaration was subsequently withdrawn, Bala followed up by saying he was forced to withdraw it. Feel free to include the history of the PI's claim. If there was no relation to the murder, there would have been no point to the prosecutor's attempt to get Najib to testify. Both of these are valid points to show a relationship to the victim and the murder itself. In any case, even if a dedicated section on the victim is removed, it at least warrants a mention on the Ministry of Defence section in relation to the Submarine deal, which is well referenced to be related to the murder. Either way, the victim's murder and a link to the article itself should still exist in this article.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao, you seem to be acting in good faith in that you really believe what you are saying. However, you are pushing a fringe POV and I suggest you read the appropriate guideline. This is not a place for correcting injustice, real or perceived, nor is it a forum for conspiracy theories. This material has no place here. Its sole purpose is to defame Najib. The only article that referenced that links Najib to this murder in any way at all, and really only by implication, is the The Liberation article which is POV and very confrontational. No other reliable sources back up Liberation and one source is not nearly enough to back up such controversial claim. No one has shown Najib knew this girl, no one has shown he killed her, no one has shown he has interfered with her prosecution. We only have opposition figures, with an incentive not to be truthful, offering conjecture. No dice. The evidence is just not there and this copy has got to go. Monkeyassault (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what you're getting at. If you're saying that the subject did not know the victim, the victim's article has more info on that, including the cousin's court testimony that the three had a picture of them having dinnner together. Or the reported contents of the statutory statements by the investigator. Or the fact that the victim's family lawyer had attempted to call Najib in for testimony. But that is unnecessary detail to go into here since this is an article about the subject, not the murder. No one is saying anything about guilt or otherwise here in the text. Just that he had been extensively reported to be linked to the defence deal by these two cases.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few points were made in the removed section:

1) Najibs alleged links are uncontestable. The mention is relevant as it is merely pointing out that he was involved in the murder since he was both initiator of the purchase deal (as minister) and there were reports of allegations that he was either called to testify, statutory statements that he was trying to help Razak Baginda (the original accused, who was the designated negotiator of the deal and reportedly his friend), and even allegations that he knew the victim (ironically its his denial of knowing the victim that was making the news, not his knowing her, that made it newsworthy). This is not OR, since the links are stated in some of the sources given.

2) The french ARE investigating allegations of corruption with the deal. I fail to see how much clearer you need the evidence to be with the term "allegations of corruption and influence-peddling" being used in the MSN article.

The only point of contention would be if this belongs to the "Ministry of Defence" section or in his tenure as PM, since the original transaction occurred during his MoD days but the news (of the murder and possible irregularities in the transactions) only occurred when he was PM. Since it was agreed previously with another editor that the murder did not need a section by itself, it was moved to the MoD section. It may also makes better sense chronologically.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that only the opposition suspects the connection suggests to the normal reader that its some form of political play by the opposition. For example, the father of the deceased and the French reporters are definitely not part of the opposition.Its a murder that just happens to have allegations of links to the subject, leaving it as it is without mentioning the opposition will be NPOV. Specifically mentioning the opposition in a seemingly exclusive manner is POV pushing and weasel wording. However, mentioning that it was the opposition who raised the corruption issue for investigaation is allowed as that did happen. Editors must specifically differentiate them though.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are fighting over insignificant details in an attempt to retain material that is in violation of BLP. In any event, you are also wrong on those very same details. Read the sources. Altantuya's father is unhappy with the handling of the case but has not brought forward any evidence linking Najib to the murder. Monkeyassault (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong here. Considering the broad scope of scources and links that are linking Najib to the victim, that fails the test of Fringe. Also do note that there is not consensus about removing that section. As I quote word for ford from Wikipedia's definition of a fronge theory, "It is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Reliable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it. To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

Major publications; Reliable sources and independent with reasonable reliability and quality; referenced extensively; in a serious manner: Look at the sources quoted. Channel News Asia, Asiaone.com, Sin Chew, Bernama.com, MSN.com. The only discussion here has been about the location where the section is to be included, and you are the only editor so far who is against inclusion of that section at all. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Najib's link to the case is mentioned in context to the submarine deal as it did not justify a new section by itself. Its as minimal as it can get here. Or would you prefer that a whole subsection be dedicated to the submarine purchase deal which makes detailed and explicit references to point out that the 2 cases are related? I don't think it justifies such a detailed writeup, but if you want to make it absolutely clear on the article we can work together on that.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been controversial on this page but I have refrained from involvement before. However after reading the dispute between Zhanzhao and Monkeyassault I clicked through the several sources that were provided. Other than two which are not working, none of these sources said that Najib was "linked" to her except as Mkativerata wrote months ago, that is very tangential. Yet I also could not find any mention that she was a translator. I then searched for Altanuya Shaaribuu's name and the word Scorpene together and I found nothing that made the claim previously in this section. So I do think this section should be accurate, but this was not accurate and not supported by the sources. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the links are slowly dying off, as not all news sites keep the articles online all the time. Though I only note one which is not working (The Sinchew one). I've updated with new links, one for the translator association and the rest which mention the link and the statutory declaration. As editors we can only report that the sources have identified or stated that there were links between the subject and the victim. Attempting to go further in and explain/analyse whether the links are valid or not means we are injecting our POV and OR into the article which we are not supposed to.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Industry Daily does not appear to meet the criteria for being a reliable source and certainly is not reliable enough, on its own, to support language linking Najib to this murder. Setting aside the issue of reliability the source does not link Najib to the murder. It is also important to note that this post is a work of opinion. No mention is made of Altantuya working as a translator on the Scorpene deal. The piece in Bernama on Karpal's request to have Najib testify only says that he wanted Najib to testify. It does not link Najib to the murder. No mention is made of Scorpene. The article also does not make any claim that Altantuya worked as a translator on the deal. The Channel NewsAsia piece also fails to link Najib to the murder and to Scorpene. It merely makes mention that Balasubramaniam made a statement linking Najib and then retracted it. No mention of Altantuya working as a translator is made. The AsiaOne news piece contains nothing linking Najib to the murder. It only summarizes Bala's statutory declaration which another sources says he has rescinded. Even Bala's own lawyer says the statutory declaration was not a statement of truth in this very piece. Nothing in this source shows Altantuya worked as a translator on Scorpene. The MSN piece does not in any implicate Najib in the murder, does not accuse him of corruption, and does not say Altantuya worked as a translator on Scorpene.The Asia Sentinel piece is the only one to directly claim that Altantuya worked on Scorpene but the piece does not provide any evidence at all the Najib was linked to the murder. Bloomberg merely reprints accusations from RPK about Najib's wife witnessing the murder. No direct evidence is given. This article also includes denials from Najib. Why can we beleive RPK but not Najib? While Liberation seems to be a reliable source the piece referenced is extremely combative in tone and seems to be pushing a fringe conspiracy theory that Najib murdered or ordered the murder of Altantuya.

The fact of the matter is that you are pushing a fringe theory with very, very little evidence.Monkeyassault (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get down to the nitty and gritty of it: How is the DID not a reliable source? According to the publication history it publishes industry related B2B news, which makes it a well-informed 3rd party. In any case, its just one of many sources. The CNA article shows that it was more than just the opposition that believed that Najib was involved. Plus linkage was made in other sources. The statutory document, which you said another source said was rescinded, was yet mentioned in another source that last action was as a result of coercion. Bloomberg's reprint shows that yet another reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, deemed those as reliable sources. See WP:RS. Liberation's theories as a reliable source can be checked by the fact that so many third party sources are referencing it. Not all sources state every single point that was mentioned in the article. Thats why so many were needed, to re-inforce and re-validate the various information found in the Liberation's article, which was the most comprehensive. And as a result, makes it not FRINGE, as per the test I made above. But you may be right in pointing out that Najib's denial was not included in the article, so I'll add it in, though I feel it unnecessarily pads the article length (usually in wikipedia, statements with allegations do not include denials as it is assumed to have occured).Zhanzhao (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao, I agree with the concerns of Mkativerata recently and some of what Monkeyassault says, too. I don't agree that WP:FRINGE is really the main issue here, although I do agree there is some aspect of this discussion which does include minority theories trying to gain an equal footing with accepted facts. The bigger problem I see is that by combining all of these sources and pulling out a detail here and a detail there we have a case of WP:SYNTHESIS where individual facts can be shown to be plausibly true but to get where you want to go, you have to do your own interpretation of the facts. The fact that no source says what you seem to want this paragraph to say is a huge red flag. And this statement: "Liberation's theories as a reliable source can be checked by the fact that so many third party sources are referencing it." I am sorry but this is a non sequitur. That doesn't verify anything. I don't know a lot about the murder investigation, so that makes me a good test case. And especially with cases where WP:BLP applies we have to be very careful. I have revised this section to focus only on the submarines and jets because no one seems to disagree about that. --Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussion is getting abit confused here, so lets clarify some things first. The Liberation article was mentioned as the consolidating article, the main crux of it was the association of the murder to the subject to the submarine purchase. The text of the article as it was written merely mentioned this relationship between the three. 1st, the link between the murder to the submarine deal is clearly mentioned in other sources (Of which I just updated since the onging corruption investigation keeps associating the murder to the submarine deal). In a few sources, it even explicitely states that it was the murder that raised awareness of the submarine deal and subsequent corruption investigation. 2nd, the link between the subject to the murder itself is also made clear in many of the sources. The main problem I actually see is mentioning the 2nd link in an even handed tone, which I appreciate any help on the actual phrasing. 3rd, the relationship between the submarine deal scandal and the subject is clearcut and needs no explanation (as it was the only thing not removed). No offence, but claiming to not something about the investigation is not a good test at all; more so considering the fact that another article you are editing clearly mentions the same case[[6]].Zhanzhao (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao, I am concerned that you are so insistent about including this particular detail when, as it has been pointed out before, most of the articles you cite do not in fact back up the narrow claims. I have read a translated version of the Liberation article, and that article merely reports about the rumors, not about the case itself. It does not establish whether they are credible, only that the claim has been made. Especially considering the claims are not definitive and factual, this very clearly fails the inclusion test of WP:HARM. I am going to remove it again. I hope you can see that Wikipedia requires a high standard of verifiability for contentious information about living persons we don't have to find a third party to resolve this. Please do not add it again. Also, please do sign your comments here so others can see who is making comments. And to offer a friendly note of advice on editing articles, please review your formatting in Preview before saving. Thank you, --Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, please read my reply carefully as well as what was changed in my revert (which I ammended from prior)[[7]]. What particular detail are you actually talking about that shouldn't be included? (1)The relevance of the murder to the submarine deal? (2)The subject's relevance to the submarine deal investigation, or (3)the subject's relevance to the murder? The text as I included before you removed it only has the 1st 2 points which are fully sourced and referenced with reliable sources without even having to refer to the Liberation article, as I see that some editors here have something against even mentioning the 3rd point. In any case, WP:HARM would only prove valid if the 3rd point (the subject's alleged relevance to the murder) was being stated explicitely). And if you had bothered to actually read my last edit carefully as mentioned above, I already removed that (statement regarding Najib's alleged link ot the murder), at least until someone else can provide a more wiki-friendly way to phrase that link. I don't see how I am being insistent when all I am doing is providing reported facts on the catalyst that drew attention to the submarine deal and its subsequent investigation. You miught as well suggest that we remove ALL mention of the submarine deal just because it "violates WP:HARM". In which case I DO sugget that we get a neutral 3rd party in to moderate this. A best bet would be someone who has totally no interest in malaysian politics so that a fair decision can be made, as all of us here seem to be getting quite heated about how this article is supposed to be written. Wiki-lawyering should not be abused to POV.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get a 3rd party in to moderate, I'd like to first find out exactly how BLP and Fringe is being infringed.

1) The murder is now mentioned in context of the Scorpene deal and subsequent investigation investigation, which is properly referenced, with no explicit reference to the subject. The deal however IS tied to his tenure as the Minister of Defense. 2) For the sources which are supposedly not properly referenced (also refering to point (1), please explain how the existing text as it is has been improperly referenced. 3) Please explain how the existing text is Fringe with respect to point (2) since there are multiple references supporting the current text even without referencing the content of the Liberation article..

Before doing another revert, please read carefully the existing text as it is NOW. It has changed[[8]] since your last revert. Then refer to the 3 points I just made.

As for the "Developing consensus", I had also pointed out that his edits were made without realizing that the text he had issues with had already been changed.

Thanks!Zhanzhao (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating the BLP by posting libelous material, which we are required to revert immediately BTW. You are violating the Fringe by pushing the bizarre notion that the PM or his wife ordered a hit on someone. Monkeyassault (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article text as it was before your edit does not mention this "bizarre notion that PM or his wife ordered a hit on someone." Obviously you failed to read the text before you removed it. Note that the 2 previous editor's comments were made before the last change was made, as I explained repeatedly. And they have not had complaints since I pointed out that fact. Except for you of course. So let me point out again, please read [[9]], specifically the difference in the 1st sentence. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not mention it. But you have been pushing that theory for months and this is not the proper forum to do so. No reliable source says Najib was involved with this murder and we don't have sufficient evidence to show this murder connected to Scorpene. We also do not even have enough evidence to link Najib to Scorpene. In short, this info just does not belong here. Merely playing around with the words is not enough while still leaving the implication that Najib had someone killed is not acceptable. Monkeyassault (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I've not been pushing anything for months. This particular article is merely one of many topics that I edit, as can bee seen from my contribution history. I'm not even Malaysian and am not concerned with taking sides in Malaysian politics. The concern now is about what the what the article is saying NOW, not what it used to say before. As mentioned repeatedly the article does not say the subject was involved with the murder. . Neither does the text imply that the subject had someone killed. I have a strong suspicion that you are confusing Baginda with the subject Najib here, since both of them are named Razak, in which case an inclusion of "no relation to the subject" should fix it. Thats the only reasonable assumption I can make, since a mistaken assumption is the only reason why you keep thinking the article is implicating Najib instead of Baginda. As for the association between the deal and the murder, there are multiple sources (i.e. Asiansentinel) saying the murder raised the profile of the Scorpene deal. As you are the one who refused to accept the sources listed as RS, I suggest that you raise those sources up at WP:RSSS. Make use of the tools that wikipedia provide, though I fail to see how those can be rejected since they are all news sources.

Plus from the way you keep referring to the past, its more and more obvious that you are letting that rather than the content as it is NOW cloud your judgement regarding the current phrasing of the article. I suggest you take a break, clear your mind, and re-read the text, or get someone who is uninvolved to take a look at it and give you a unbiased feedback on it.Zhanzhao (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao, you're right, I see that you have removed the claim of the link to the murder. That's good, I am glad you agree it should not be there. However, I'd like to know what significance you think the murder has to Najib. While it does seem the murder has significance to the Scorpene deal, this page is about Najib.

If you think about what you have said about WP:HARM, that "would only prove valid if the 3rd point (the subject's alleged relevance to the murder) was being stated explicitely", that is simply a contradiction -- now there is no reason to include this detail. If mentioning the murder was significant because of an alleged link to Najib, then removing the allegation but leaving a mention of the murder does nothing to enlighten. In that way I now think Monkeyassault has a point, that this may get into WP:FRINGE territory.

Consider this: there are potentially many things about the Scorpene deal which could be mentioned. I wish to WP:ASSUME good faith here, so I won't accuse you of violating WP:POV. However I do believe including this particular detail could be seen as POV by other editors. Why this detail and not another? The apparent answer is to imply some nefarious involvement. But since we know the official record says there was none, there is no reason to include this. If there is another, please explain on this Talk page before adding it again. And before you do, please read WP:GREATWRONGS which provides another reason we should be cautious about including material of this nature.

Especially when considering material to use on WP:BLP articles, we must consider the question of whether this information serves to inform or whether it serves to scandalize or sensationalize. On balance, the inclusion of this information does not enlighten the reader about Najib. That is why I have removed it. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this. The only way of properly sanitising the article to remove suggestions of a link between Najib and the murder is to remove the mention of the murder. Any mention of the murder in the article implies involvement by Najib without saying it. We should only mention the parts of the Scorpene deal that actually relate to Najib - such as the part that Spinosaurus aegyptiacus has just left in the article saying that "The Malaysian opposition has also accused Najib of involvement in the receipt of large commissions for the purchases of two Scorpene submarines and 18 Sukhoi fighter jets" (although even that is speculative). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you put it that way (regarding the murder) it does makes some sense, if you you are talking about Najib's the direct relation to the murder itself. Thanks for breaking down your arguement and explaining it properly. Its pretty difficult to explain the complicated issue of the murder without giving it undue weight, and more feasible to create an article on the submarine deal investigation itself and put that information there (when there's enough info, as the investigation is still "young" and not much info to write up with at the moment). But I have to yet again disagree about Monkeyassault's point that it is WP:FRINGE territory. As I pointed out repeatedly, the ongoing investigation about the submarine deal is ongoing, and more news sources reporting about it again [[10]] with many mentioning the deal's link to the murder. Not every murder gets such coverage. Its the murder's association to the deal and vice versa that gave each other such prominence.

I also have to fully disagree that "opposition party" accusing Najib of involvement in the receipt of large commissions for the purchases of two Scorpene submarines and 18 Sukhoi fighter jets...." bit as speculative. The accusation did factually happen, and the official accusation seriously taken by the French government that it did in fact trigger the investigation into possible kickbacks into the case. I'm however finding it difficult to place that whole section of the article as it is pretty much standalone. The previous location does not make sense chronologically nor flow well, nor does it justify a whole sub-heading by itself, so I'm leaving it at the last part for now (since with the ongoing investigations it is most likely to grow in the future.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

As the content was removed due to fringe and blp factors, I've included updated links of news as reported by a number of mainstream news agencies. I've tried to keep the writing as objective as possible. Do feel freeto touch it up rather than doing a blanket removal. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1Malaysia

1Malaysia is an on-going campaign announced by Prime Minister Najib Razak on 16 September 2008, calling for the cabinet, government agencies, and civil servants to emphasize ethnic harmony, national unity, and efficient governance.^[1] The eight values of 1Malaysia as articulated by Najib Razak are perseverance, a culture of excellence, acceptance, loyalty, education, humility, integrity, and meritocracy.^[2]

On 17 September 2008, Najib launched 1Malaysia.com.my in an effort to communicate with the citizens of Malaysia more efficiently and support the broader 1Malaysia campaign, He has used the site to highlight his policy initiatives and to provide a forum for Malaysians to their government. The 1Malaysia campaign makes extensive use of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.^[3][4]

Yet when his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin declared that he is "Malay first and Malaysian second" thus going head-on against his "1Malaysia" ideals, Najib did not hesitate to go to Muhyiddin's defence.^[5]

He popularized the use of "You help me, I help you" term in Malaysia politic. Please pay attention at 1:09 minute of the video.^[6]

Forjustice msia (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a section for 1Malaysia in the article --Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian prime minister name is Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak ^[7]

Maxwellame (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: According to this page on what purports to be his official web site, the name as stated in the lede is correct. Can you clarify the reason for any discrepancy? Rivertorch (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Malay name is unique, Mohd although read the same inotation not means short form of Mohammed/Mohammad/Mohamad or more pronunciation. From the official website and many other sources, it is clearly stated as Mohd but not Mohd.(with dot) where the difference is with dot means is the short writing of the long word Mohammed/Mohammad/Mohamad. For example, fourth prime minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, Mahathir father's name is Mohamad, not written as Mohd likewise. If Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak is written in Mohammad Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak, it is not considered the same name. Thank you. Maxwellame (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing this properly is beyond my level of competence. I've left a note at WikiProject Malaysia asking editors there to come and take a look. Rivertorch (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can please remind the WikiProject Malaysia editors to reply on this matter.talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remind them. The thread I opened is here. Please be patient, though; some WikiProjects are more active than others, and it may take a few days before anyone notices and has time to respond. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet when his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin declared that he is "Malay first and Malaysian second" thus going head-on against his "1Malaysia" ideals, Najib did not hesitate to go to Muhyiddin's defence."

The portion above does not accurately represent the information provided in thestar.com.my article. It appears to have been taken out of context and should be corrected. I Love Teh Tarik (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned with the quality of the edits being introduced to the article. There are several glaring BLP issues with the sub-section on the Scorpene deals case which was recently inserted by Zhanzhao. I have reverted it pending discussion on the talk page. Please note that there are other editors who have raised concerns about these edits in the past. Zhanzhao, we have interacted before on the talk page of the Lee Hsien Loong biography article, where I have consistently maintained that it is important for us to get the article right, specially when it is a biography of a living person. Please see my comments below on your assertions in the article and the sources.

• "The French courts are investigating allegations of corruption in the purchases of two Scorpène submarines, by the Malaysian Ministry of Defense in 2002, at a time when Najib was the minister of defense."

  True enough. However, this is simply an investigation mounted by the French authorities against unnamed individuals and Baginda, who is a "former associate" of Najib. Any attempt to create an impression of guilt by association is not acceptable under WP:BLPSTYLE.

Baginda was the broker engaged by the ministry, of which Najib was the head, its about how the ministry was run while under Najib.

• "Evidence emerged that the manufacturers had paid bribes to Malaysia officials."

  There are allegations that bribe money changed hands. The allegations are against ministry officials and are yet to be proven in a court of law. Yet there is nothing to suggest that Najib had anything to do with them (see WP:BLPSTYLE again).

Hence why the section is nestled under the time when he was defense minister, rather than a standalone section. Its about the state of the department which he was in charge.

• "The $2 billion transaction netted a $200-million transaction fee for his aid Abdul Razak Baginda, as well as another $44 million for classified Malaysian defense ministry documents, paid by a subsidiary of the submarine manufacturer to a company owned by Baginda."

  This is an example of misrepresentation of sources. The opinion editorial in the Vancouver Sun refers to an "unresolved story" while mentioning the $200m sum paid as a facilitation fee. Instead of presenting this as an opinion of an author (which would in itself be a questionable practice in the current case), Zhanzhao has inserted this assertion as a matter of fact (see WP:YESPOV). I would like to note that this is an opinion piece that begins with the following paragraph:

"Najib Razak has been Malaysia’s Prime Minister since early in 2009, but he has yet to fight an election and speculation is now rife among the country’s chattering classes that he may not survive at the helm until the next national vote is due in April.

"What is powering the rumour mill is yet more twists and turns in the melodrama of sex, bribery and murder stemming from when Najib was defence minister a decade ago." (emphasis mine)

A story by the Reuters, reports that a Malaysian human rights group has alleged that $44.9m were given to a company run by Baginda in exchange for secret government documents. This, again, is an allegation against Baginda, by a human rights group from Malaysia, unproven in a court of law. Zhanzhao represents this again as a matter of fact rather than an allegation by a Malaysian NGO which is what it is. Najib bears no direct relation to the alleged transactions. The three articles, including the opinion piece published by the Australian clearly mention that these allegations 'threaten to tarnish' the reputation of, and are 'causing jitters' to Najib Razak, and nothing else. Creating a connection through an original synthesis of the articles is not acceptable.

• "Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa, a Mongolian woman hired as a French translator to facilitate the purchase of the submarines and mistress to Baginda, subsequently tried to blackmail Baginda for a $500,000 cut and was subsequently murdered. 2 policemen, who were bodyguards posted to Najib,were charged and found guilty."

• The statement above contains nothing that connects Najib with the death of Altantuya and appears to be an attempt to establish guilt through association, misrepresentation and violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. The only connection made to the death of Altantuya with Najib is an inconsistent testimony which was subsequently withdrawn by Raja Petra. Such commentary must be expunged from the article with extreme prejudice as it falls afoul of WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE.

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should be written like one in a careful manner with due regard to the subjects of biographies. Just because there is negative material available about an individual online does not necessarily mean that it should find place on Wikipedia, as this project is not a place to right great wrongs.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your page, my objective was to mention how the opposition parties are raising this issue as a controversy. Its act of raising the allegations and how Najib and his government is dealing with the allegations, not about how true it was. The news coverage has mostly been focused on the allegation/reaction angle. I previously hesitated to put it as a section on its own, hence had it nestled under the part dealing with his term as Defense Minister to avoid UNDUE, but if having it standalone is the only way to make the angle absolutely clear I guess that can't be helped. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Lee Hsien Loong biography, we discussed allegations made in public which were recorded by Worthington that LHL slapped S Dhanabalan in a meeting. The crux of the argument is that we do not include each and every allegation made against individuals on their Wikipedia biographies. This allegation may be more relevant for the article on the Malaysian general elections rather than the biography page of Najib Razak. Similarly, as Chensiyuan pointed out earlier, Barack Obama has been accused of being Muslim, homosexual and not being a US citizen by birth. The Birther conspiracy theorists found mainstream media coverage and yet you will not find a single mention of their claims on Barack Obama's biography, even though there is a separate Wikipedia article dedicated to documenting the allegations made by them. An allegation or a theory will not find its way to a Wikipedia article just because it got reported in a "reliable news outlet" like Reuters (see WP:FRINGE). This is why they are called fringe theories, because they are advanced by an individual or a small group of individuals and are not accepted in the mainstream as the truth, but simply as allegations/conspiracy theories. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a place of record for unsubstantiated and unproven allegations.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that my intention was to focus on the opposition party questioning Najib about the allegations, and he and his ministry's response to them, which is the angle being covered by the various papers. The opposition was specifically directing the questions at Najib (in the past, and now). This challenge and reaction is what's being reported. And although I mentioned the upcoming election, the opposition has pressed Najib about these allegations for quite a while, its the subject's supporters that are proposing that it was timed to the election, making it not just specific to the election. The news outlets have been writing about Najib's connection to the case due to his role as Defense Minister ever since irregularities about the submarine purchases were discovered. True, Obama's page did not include the fringe theories you mentioned, but the defense ministry bribery allegation is the one that ended up as a legal case, meaning that the french court took the allegations seriously enough to put tax-dollar prosecutors and investigators on the case. Also in LSL's case, that allegation barely received any news coverage so its barely sourceable in the first place. In any case I also removed the opinion piece and added another reuters piece in its place (too much links to go through). I'll try to continue rewording it. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]