Talk:Anwar Ibrahim/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Anwar Ibrahim. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Opposition leader

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

POV Disputes

Anwar's Cronies

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

The entry is not supposed to capture anyones "viewpoints". The facts should speak for themselves. This is not the NYT or Fox news (depending on which way your bias swings). Example the cat was black is a good entry. The cat was a horrible colour is a bad entry. Arguing that the viewpoints of those stating that the colour of the cat was lovely should be represented is already moving far far away from the point of a encyclopeadia IMHO. --Malbear 13:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, what sections in the article do you consider NPOV? I think that the article pretty much sticks to the facts, so please present the exact parts you wish to dispute. Jpatokal 06:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've placed a sentence about it in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mahathir looking bad

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

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

Actually there is no way to proof ipso facto whether the recovery occured because of Mahathir or in spite of Mahathir. Anyway this page is on DSAI. Which parts of the text do you dispute factually? --Malbear 13:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

List of wrong things (can this be split up into sections?)

There are very few facts that are disputable. What is disputable is the context. The article includes facts that make Mahathir out to be some big bad guy, just like the article on him does. Little background is provided for the claim that Musa Hitam was sacked for having too high a profile. The article needs to clarify its claim that dissent was banned under Mahathir. The article needs references to back up its claims that Anwar's home was raided by masked marauders (I'm not disputing that, but it really does need references). The article drums up the protests, but in reality, just like the infamous May 13, the protests were limited to Kuala Lumpur, and unlike the article implies, not everybody was so pro-Anwar (IMO, the point of view of the quiet majority in Malaysia has been quashed — just because Mahathir was corrupt does not make his opponents innocent), and the protests were joined by a small segment of the population. This is addressed a paragraph or two later, but one NPOV paragraph does not cleanse others. The article implies that the government cracked down on the protests like a dictatorship would, but addresses this in only one sentence, and doesn't provide a reference. The paragraph on the 1999 elections contains quite a few factual errors (the government losing three states? It lost only one — Kelantan has been PAS' for quite a while). Clarification needs to be provided on Keadilan being allocated less seats — where is the Alternative Front mentioned? The last section on Anwar's release was quite bad a few days ago, with the tone being completely inappropriate, and it presented only the views of Anwar's family. I've fixed it up, but the point is that it's not the facts that are included that I have a problem with. It's the facts that aren't, and the article's overall tone. The government's version of events is almost entirely omitted, except in cases where it's presented to back up Anwar's case. I'll try to NPOV the article, but I can't guarantee anything. Johnleemk | Talk 13:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Reformasi" not included

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

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

Articles in Malaysiakini

Here's the article version before I copyedited it. [2] And here are some letters written by Malaysians to Malaysiakini, a private newspaper famous for being shut down and having its offices raided while Mahathir was in power: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Those are not representative of the mail that Malaysiakini received praising Anwar, but at the very least, indicate there's a sizeable amount of people who have their own critical view of Anwar, that is hardly represented in this article. Nothing is said of Anwar's negative influence on education in Malaysia. The views of those who argue that he was/is just as corrupt as Mahathir don't have anything mentioned about them. As I said, this article focuses too much on the views of Anwar's supporters, and the evidence supporting their opinions. I'd love to help NPOV this article, but I know too little about Anwar as it is to help very much further (I can help copyedit grammatically incorrect edits, though). If it's true that Anwar destroyed English education in Malaysia, I'm pretty pissed off about that, so I just thought I'd mention my bias here. I'm placing the NPOV dispute notice on the page until we can cover the opinions of others on Anwar, whether they're right or wrong. Johnleemk | Talk 09:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's see if I get this straight. Your position is that there is nothing wrong with what is in this article now (If there is please point it out - would be nice to section it too so that we don't have large uber-posts here). Your beef is that not enough "negative" things have been said about DSAI???? If you have the facts then I recommend that you put it in the article. If you have an airy fairy feeling but since your position is "but I know too little about Anwar as it is to help very much further" then I suggest you either (1) learn and add (2) accept whats there for what it is. --Malbear 13:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. My position is that it presents only Anwar and his supporters' views half of the time — the other half was copyedited by me. The issue is not whether or not Anwar and/or his critics are right, but that his critics, right or wrong, are not mentioned here.

Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In which case mention them. Once again let me ask the simple question...ARE ANY OF THE FACTS IN THIS PAGE "WRONG"? If so , point them out, edit them, move on. If not then, ok, we accept that there are facts that are not in wikipedia as of yet. Feel free to contribute and add those facts. That's why we are here.

--Malbear 16:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nonono, the thing is, that if these crucial facts are omitted, the article is POV, and therefore deserves to be listed as such. I was making my case for placing the tag on the article, partially as a benefit for future readers (since the notice asks them to read the Talk page for further information). Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Methinks thou doth protesteth overmuch. If a "crucial fact" you are privy to is missing then add it in. If you are sure some such fact exists BUT you don't know then find out and add it in. Should such a fact not be found then perhaps it does not exist. No one is saying Anwar is an angel but until facts can be found to be added (topical ones too) then I don't see how we can "balance" this.--Malbear 19:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Methinks you are not getting it. Whether or not the fact(s) claimed by Anwar's critics are true or not is irrelevant. The point is that the article is unbalanced because only one point of view is presented, even if that point of view is ultimately correct. Let's see if we can apply your arguments to something like, say, Nazism. We don't shove Holocaust revisionists' opinions under the carpet and pretend they don't exist, even though almost everybody thinks they're, shall we say, wrong. We present their opinions. We mention that most people disagree, but we don't hide their views. The fact that their facts are biased, twisted and in some cases, outright wrong doesn't prevent us from mentioning that. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From the article, a Martian would think that Mahathir was a monster and that Anwar was entirely free from guilt from corruption. What negative things are you talking about? The last section seems a bit too personal at times, with a tone that appears to be sympathetic to Anwar. The rest of the article focuses on his campaign against Mahathir, not even noting that he had not been known for any such tendencies towards reformasi beforehand (in other words, Mahathir became corrupt only after he fired Anwar). I don't have an issue with what is already in the article, like I've said already. I have an issue with what isn't in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then for goodness sake add what isn't there. As mentioned above. Wikipedia is not complete. It is a work in motion. Do we add things that are of interest to us? Yes we do. For example, I never editted swahilli pages but that doesn't mean there is a problem in what is there. It just means thats not my interest. Do I think Mahathir is a monster? Yes I do. do I think Anwar is a saint? No I don't. However, does that mean that anything posted here is less than true? I hope not. I think your request that different views be placed here is great. so please do it. --Malbear 16:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See above.

I do not have facts, but opinions of Anwar's critics, which I will try to get around to placing in the article, but I cannot corroborate the facts they mention. Trying to find negative, substantiated facts about Anwar is almost pointless, as almost everything is so pointlessly biased either in favour of Anwar or hopelessly against him that it's mostly a mass of opinion.

Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You do not have facts? Yet you condemm the viewpoint of those who have posted what is fact. If any "facts" here do not speak the truth then let's have it out. Yet if the truth does not support your viewpoint then perhaps that's too bad...--Malbear 16:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Facts" as in that we have trivial information such as what course Anwar's daughter graduated in, when we don't mention what Mahathir had to say about Anwar, we don't mention what Anwar's opponents think of him. I am not condemning your viewpoint. Rather, I am condemning the article's viewpoint for somehow avoiding Anwar's opponents' criticisms, whether they are truthful or not. If, for example, John Kerry were to be accused of eating babies by a sizeable number of people, we would mention that they did, but that the claims are false. We don't cite our own opinions. When I was talking about a fact deficiency, I was referring to the article's complete silence about Anwar's critics — not even a sentence mentioning they exist. If the John Kerry article were not to mention that people accuse him of eating babies (presuming that a sizeable number of these people exist), ti would have the NPOV tag slapped on it right away. I'm just justifying my reasons for doing so here.

Perhaps Anwar's daughter being Anwar's daughter is topical on this page. Mahathir's views on Anwar can be on the Mahathir page (which again you can feel free to edit). Surely if you have spent 6 years in prison only to come out days before your daughter graduates, it is material that you have a hard choice between staying for it or going for a life saving operation. No?--Malbear 19:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An in-depth analysis/presentation of Mahathir's views, yes. But we don't even have a single quote from him or even a government/UMNO spokesperson in the section about the turbulent period when Anwar was sacked and led the protests. That's a serious hole in the article. As for the graduation, I wasn't challenging the inclusion of that material, just using it as a comparison, but using the same argument, wouldn't what course she graduated in be more topical in an article about her? People who visit the Anwar article won't be interested in a full-length speech of Mahathir's or three paragraphs discussing what Mahathir had to say about Anwar, but they're not coming to see a sugar-coated brochure advocating Anwar. You see, what Mahathir has to say about Anwar is not only relevant to the article about him, but the article about Anwar too. Some people would even be able to craft an argument for why the longer discourse on Mahathir's opinion of Anwar should be on Anwar's article. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If 90% of the people believed that John Kerry ate babies then I would say that putting such a believe in would be exactly POV. If 1% of people believed that John Kerry ate babies and they could prove it then it would be non POV. See, just because many people believe something doesn't make it a fact. Belief in blood letting and a flat earth persisted for a long time because many people held that view. Then again, would it be topical to add a section critics of Anwar or to write an entirely new article "Criticisms of anwar and the reformasi movement"....--Malbear 19:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is, we're intentionally hiding the facts from the reader if we pretend that 90% of people don't believe Kerry eats babies. Therefore, it is POV not to mention Anwar's critics' opinions, regardless of their veracity. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, I will be adding what I managed to glean from those letters to the article. My reason for posting them was to prove that there is a sizeable mass of people who do not share the rosy opinions of Anwar some editors of this article have. According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, their opinions must be represented in the article as well for it to be NPOV. Much of the policy actually focuses on an article including the opinions of its authors, but that's not that much of an issue here compared to that we have glaring omissions in negative material about Anwar, which I will be adding tomorrow (if possible). Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other words (let me paraphrase into an easy sentence)..."there is no evidence to support my hypothese but let me look thru my data and I will show you the data points that support my opinion". The scientific method works there other way, friend. You have data and then you make a conclusion. To look for data to support a pre-decided conclusion would only make uncle chomsky proud :)

--Malbear 16:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. You apparently haven't even gotten the drift of what my hypothesis is. I'm not talking about facts as in cold hard facts, damn it. I'm talking about reporting the opinions of Anwar's critics. I've proven they exist. I just haven't gotten around to examining their claims in closer detail. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Opinions go to the letters to the editor. Facts go in the encyclopeadia. When you have facts then add them. Till then, the facts which you claim to have but have not put up does not make contrary facts (which may I add you have not disputed) any less "worthy" or any more POV. Simple? I am quite painfully aware that you are not talking about cold hard facts. You have an opinion, can we call it *gasp* a point of view (and can we abbreviate it to POV) which somehow is not reflected in the article and that makes you upset. There, there, I'm sure you can go to the nearest mamak and get a mahathir cookie, and hopefully everything will be right as rain :) --Malbear 19:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anwar, corruption-fighter

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

Anwar did not become such a corruption-fighter until he was no longer hobnobbing with Mahathir and his cronies

Add that into the article if you have the facts or citation of opinion of a significant group. -- sabre23t 15:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put a sentence about it in. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOVing

My brief look through the article didn't find me anything much to add or subtract from the article now. Perhaps it's NPOV enough from my location. ;-) -- sabre23t 13:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the article once or twice, added sections for clarity and to break monotoy of the long pessages, wikified a few key figures that has yet to have articles, and removed one sentence that seem to belabor a point. That's it from me for now. ;-) -- sabre23t 13:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correctly seguing material into the article

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

Commonwealth Games

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

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

No dispute here, I think. Moving to resolved. I guess you can move those points to somewhere in 1998 Commonwealth Games. Mmm, I've been snapping pixs of all those expensive statues of CG98 logos around towns, the fallen one near KLIA, the faded one in Klang. Is there one you know that's still in good condition? -- sabre23t 23:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point here is that Anwar made bigger press than the comonwealth games which was pretty much not what the government wanted and definitely not what the sponsors of the games wanted. Cannot think of a more specific example of how to write "this was front page news" to the exclusion of almost anything else. We can either put a POV statement like this was front page news or show how millions of RM was spent to publicize another event yet the publicity failed to take away the headlines.....your choice --Malbear 01:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright violation

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

Pictures pictures

We want pictures. At least I want one. I hate seeing a long article without one. Some pictures I think we can get without too much effort ...

join the crowd at KLIA and snap Anwar's pix when he arrive back from Munich
join the crowd at his house at Damansara to snap a pix
look out for any of his "black-eye" reformasi poster and snap it in context

... I'll do #3 if I can find that poster somewhere. ;-) -- sabre23t 23:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a special ABC report VCD concerning the Sham Trial of Anwar Ibrahim. I probably can snapshot the scene where the masked policemen broke Anwar's house's window the night they arrested him (the same night he was beaten by the then IGP).

Aleen1412, that would certainly be useful, and I understand snapshot stills of a video is fair use. Please, include information about the VCD on the image description page. -- sabre23t 09:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've just reinstated the CopyrightedFreeUse images from www.malaysia-today.net as released by its editor Raja Petra Kamarudin back in 2004. Images page updated with CopyrightedFreeUse template. --sabre23t 10:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lay off of workers

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

The Mahathir doctrine for economic recovery

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

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

That Mahathir was a protectionist is clearly established. See Mahathir bin Mohamad and Asian values. The South Korean bit is unclear, but it's definite that Mahathir did believe that protecting Malaysian businesses was more important than allowing them to collapse under the strain of a free market. Johnleemk | Talk 07:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually what we perhaps can find commong ground on is "Mahathir believed that the development of Malaysian-owned businesses and local industries took a higher priority than that of untrammelled open competition". However, I do not agree with the phrase "Malaysian owned business". Perhaps "businesses owned by his circle". Many companies were in fact allowed to fail while Folks like Halim Saad and Tajuddin were bailed out. As for the South Korean bit we need more evidence methinks. --Malbear 06:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you want to put that into the article, you'll need to give specific examples of companies as big as those these guys held that weren't bailed out. As for Korea, I don't know Mahathir's opinions, but there's sentiment that the IMF didn't really help out much. [8] [9] [10] [11] Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think thats necessary in an Anwar article. Perhaps in a more exhaustive article about the crisis/recovery (have we actually recovered?). The point is that Mahathir and Anwar had different views on the plan to sail out of the crisis. The Korean thing was gratuititous anyway and we cannot actually link it with Mahathirs decision. Regarding the Korean recovery it wasn't really an IMF effort as opposed to more a restructuring effort on the part of the government to allow large but diseased chaebols to fall. http://wfile.fss.or.kr/data1/en/nws/hjl1026sf.html

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

Removal of Hoagland's offer

Why was the following removed?

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

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

Ops Lallang

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

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

Family and personal life

Shouldn't we have some information about Anwar Ibrahim's family in this article. His parents, siblings, wife, and kids? Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography doesn't seem to mention anything about family. Though I see George W. Bush has a "Personal life, service, and education". -- sabre23t 11:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All Wikipedia biographies should give info about the subject's personal relationships and family. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a cultural and data-protection issue. The Anglosphere wants family members. I am particularly interested in the beginnings, like parents' jobs etc. because I find it helpful to know from which background people come and come to do what they do. Sometimes one can find interesting sociological patterns. In the German Wikipedia, by contrast, you have practically no background information (unless the person is a celebrity and wants it there to boost his/her image). Strictly speaking, they would also say, the fact that I am prominent and have a bio on wikipedia does not mean that my parents, siblings etc need to be exposed. Maybe one day someone will write a PHD on these cultural and legal differences. 121.209.56.202 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Back injury

I removed the mention that the NST never explained why his back injury took 10 years to manisfest. Firstly and most importantly, it appears to be OR. Unless another reliable source has suggested this is an issue, we can't mentioned it. Secondly if it is OR, whoever added this appears to be assuming it took 10 years to manifest. In fact, I'm pretty sure he was complaining about the problem in 2001 or so if not earlier so it wasn't 10 years. Also, we don't know if he has had problems before with his back. Finally, we're assuming it's even unusual for a problem like this to take a while to manifest. It doesn't seem to me from my limited medical knowledge to be that surprising that a injury sustained during the fall could get worse over time. None of this really matters of course, if it's OR then it has to go. But I thought it might be helpful to point out why I think it's not only OR but a bit silly too Nil Einne 18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Printing press

I removed:

In a country where printing presses are licensed by the government, this implied the involvement of the Mahathir administration.^{[citation needed]}

As it's unreferenced and a bit too weasel wordy. It's important to remember that while the government does retain control over the press, this doesn't mean every single person who runs a magazine is someone the government controls. From memory wasn't the magazine some sort of slightly insane tabloid which ran insane stories (I was abducted by aliens and that sort of stuff), not something the government really cares about. I've also never particular heard this claim before and I'm somewhat doubtful it's a common claim. From my experience, most commentators think it was something Mahathir resurrected when he realised he could use it rather then something he constructed from the get go. While in every negative thing there's usually someone who claims the government was involved were going to at least need a reliable source before we mention it. Nil Einne 14:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this [12], it appears I was right. It seems people in UMNO, perhaps even some in government may have been involved but even Anwar potentially does not think Mahathir was himself involved in the book affair initially. Nil Einne 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war & semi-protection of article

With the current developments, it is inevitable that there will be those seeking to vandalise the articles involving the major players. This page has been subject to quite a few vandalism attempts over the last week. Any ideas? Bob K | Talk 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has been semi-protected until August 1, 2008 due to the increasing number and consistency of vandalism. - Bob K | Talk 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

Wikipedia articles refer to their subjects throughout the text by their family name, rather than their personal name. So in the article on Elvis Presley, the subject is referred to as "Presley", not "Elvis". In this article the subject is repeately referred to as "Anwar" rather than "Ibrahim". Is that usage proper? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that this is standard usage for the subject, per BBC article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In Malaysian (or perhaps some Muslims) context, they don't use the first name-surname format, but rather first name-father's name format. Anwar Ibrahim is actually Anwar, the son of Ibrahim. So, by calling him Ibrahim, is technically incorrect, as you are calling his father, not Anwar. Anwar does not have a surname. --Zack2007 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Malaysian or Muslim. It's just Malay culture. __earth ^(Talk) 07:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Malaysia-related articles). And note that it's not just Malay people, see Megawati Sukarnoputri, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Saddam Hussein and Mengistu Hailemariam for other examples of leaders with patronymics, their Wikipedia articles all refer to them by their given name. Haukur (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation NPOV

Last week I added a "citation needed" tag, which Bobk immediately replaced with a citation for an already-cited source. I reviewed the source and it comes from an activist political organization in Malaysia, not an objective news or academic source. (See: http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=9) Several other cited works make unsourced claims. (See: http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/ms990301.html)

I think the cited works should be reviewed for unsourced claims, which in light of this could include a number of libelous statements that should be stricken immediately from a biographical article. SpongeBob1993 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The sourced site may be from an NGO but the incident related is factual and is used as a citation for a neutral account of an acknowledged incident, which is in public record without any editorialising. Liability has already been established on the case in question and would therefore be considered historical rather than libel. I am including additional citations from news agencies. The removal of the paragraph recounting the incident seems more POV than otherwise and I will be restoring it unless it can be proven otherwise. - Bob K | Talk 05:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I object to the neutrality of the source being cited. It is a "news organization" with a clear editorial purpose. Any news source with an "Our Mission" page obviously has motives that transcend reporting just the facts. (The NY Times, BBC, whatever paper you'd like, none of them report this incident. Events which transpired late at night in a prison cell are more likely than not the exclusive province of heresay.) Furthermore, even in the context of the article, the beating itself is not indicated as being a finding of the government commission; it is merely background information provided by the author to bolster his claims of widespread police corruption. But in the absence of the report itself, or of any citations whatsoever--in the article or here--that independently verify potentially libelous statements against Rahim Noor, these accusations are unsubstantiated. And given the very high stakes for Wikipedia articles regarding libel, I ask once again that these statements either be cited with credible, objective sources; or that these accusations be removed entirely from this Wikipedia article. SpongeBob1993 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Parti Keadilan Rakyat.png

The image Image:Parti Keadilan Rakyat.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Anwar Ibrahim?

Why does Anwar Ibrahim redirect to Anwar Ibrahim (politician)? If Anwar Ibrahim refers to this article and this gentleman is not going to be confused with another Anwar Ibrahim then surely this page should be at Anwar Ibrahim. Plasticup ^T/C 05:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Done WWGB (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate style and new article for sodomy

The article is starting to sound like paper article. It reports the minutest details with dates with little care for the big pictures. It is good to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a news portal. Furthermore, certain section is starting to put too much weight aspect of the subject's life, skewing the article's focus. It is very likely that the section on sodomy needs a page by itself. __earth ^(Talk) 06:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on a topic can, in and of itself, be POV. That section needs to be cut down. The extraneous detail adds no value for the reader. Monkeyassault (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Date format

The infobox and beginning of the article use day first, but later it switches to month first. I believe that articles should consistently use one format or the other. Which is correct in this case? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation

I would remove the following categories from the Anwar Ibrahim article as I believe that they are no longer appropriate:

Category:20th-century criminals

Category:Malaysian criminals

Category:Malaysian prisoners and detainees

Category:Prisoners and detainees of Malaysia

When someone has "served their time" a label of criminal or prisoner is not correct. Another editor has argued for the categories to remain. Is there a guideline that applies to this situation? WWGB (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials

Interested editors are asked to keep an eye on Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials where one editor persists in changing headers to Sodomy 1 and Sodomy 2. These terms are unproven, tabloidish and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 220.253.242.41 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post

The Huffington Post is a internet newspaper and a Blog, nor a blog only, please respect the references coming from this page, the articles are made by well known people. BredoteauU2 (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Improving

I wonder how we best can improve this article?? Maybe the lead needs more citations?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwat (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LEADCITE. Information in the lead section is less likely to require a source. WWGB (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why is there a "citation needed tag" following the statement that this guy is facing new allegations of sodomy? Should that content be removed? Luwat (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Anwar Ibrahim.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anwar Ibrahim.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear

The answer to the previous heading appears to be "no". Having turned to this article for some background, I was rather disappointed with it. The article is so disjointed that it is really difficult to piece together the events surrounding Anwar's decline, fall and revival. To give an example, in one section the text reads In 1998 Newsweek magazine named Anwar the "Asian of the Year". However, in that year, matters between Anwar and Mahathir came to a head around the time of the quadrennial UMNO General Assembly. The Youth wing of UMNO, headed by Anwar's associate Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, gave notice that it would initiate a debate on "cronyism and nepotism". Then comes the heading 'Political prospects', followed by In November 2006, Anwar announced he planned to run for Parliament in 2008, after his disqualification expired. What disqualification? What happened in the intervening eight years?

There are also sections such as There is report on Anwar using large cash payments to win support. Anwar is alleged to have resorted to money politics to secure his position as deputy president of UMNO. Anwar's followers were witnessed by even foreign journalists handing out packets of money to acquire support of UMNO division leaders. and Anwar continued to attack Najib first day as prime minister... which although apparently cited are less than clear. This is an article on a major political figure. Could it not be improved?

I know about be bold (and I don't like drive-by tagging, which is why I am writing these comments here), but my knowledge of events in Malaysia is limited, and I feel it is more constructive to criticize rather than wade in and make sweeping changes. Hopefully those editors more knowledgeable on Malaysian matters can make the changes so sorely needed. Regards. Davidelit (Talk) 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On the virtues of brevity and concision

I have made numerous copyedits to this article. Just because we are not bound by physical constraints, does not mean we are not obliged to offer our international readership a concise overview of the facts and relevant opionions. That means, for example, we do not need to mention such factoids as the name of every judge in the appeals court, the name of the German surgeon, the time the surgery took place, how much it cost, etc etc etc. While there is no reason for us not to offer a comprehensive article on Anwar, that does not mean we should include trivia and information solely of interest/use to Malaysian readers. -- Viajero 13:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Many articles on Malaysian political figures include so much detail that important information is actually obscured. There is real value in economy of words. I am going to try and reduce the clutter. Monkeyassault (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Me agrees, too, so let me elaborate: Anwar Ibrahim was in the news here in Australia yesterday and today. The Malaysian government is not happy about him speaking at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas and had expressed that opinion a bit too clearly for our taste, shall we say. This prompted me to check what exactly the relentless and never ending pursuit of this man is really about. What does he represent, I wondered. After all, corruption, cronyism is kind of everywhere, the sexual issues are neither new nor unique and besides, they always looked a bit like from a script writer. He has a somehwhat unfriendly attitude towards Jewish influence and or American/Jewish influence, I found out here, so he needed to be nixed. That's the nutshell, really. Too many details blur the picture, I reckon, repeat too many. In the end result this page was helpful. Most people wouldn't be so interested in a bucketload of details, only in an answer to the question, why is this man so relentlessly pursued over years and years, whether his thoughts hold any water or not is even immaterial. 144.136.192.10 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Malaysia opposition chief convicted of sodomy(Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)).

Governmental years

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

Sex Videos Allegation

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

Hidden sex tape allegation

This section of the article is preposterous. Its very presence defames the subject of the article by insinuating that he may or may not have been in a sex tape. WP:BLPGOSSIP says: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." This should be removed. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote just calling the article rubbish (or preposterous) does not make it so. You need to justify it. In this case with regards to the claim of gossip then 1) the source(s) are reliable. Pretty much no debate there. 2) I don't know if the material presented is true. It suffices that it was mentioned many times, over many days, in reliable sources. 3) Yes, I think the average reader will find it relevant, so the answer to that is 'yes'. Hence it does not qualify as gossip, and should be kept. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Very eloquent, but irrelevant for Wikipedia. Huffing and puffing will no doubt ensue (I think this is at WP:BLPN) but there will not be any "hidden sex tape" nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned calling something 'nonsense' does not make it so. Point out instead which Wikipedia policy it is breaking. I think I showed it does not break WP:BLPGOSSIP. In fact according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The removed section had seven different sources from six different websites (two link to The Star). It seems pretty clear to me therefore that the allegations should be included in the article.

It has been a couple of days with no serious response (calling something nonsense with no further justification does not count), so if there is still no response I'll be reinstating the section. Banedon (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tickled as I am that you consider this stuff "noteworthy" and "relevant", that is simply not going to happen. You shouldn't need policies or guidelines to tell you that this kind of defamation is ok. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Blue links and bluster often work with newbies but won't be effective here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this obviously isn't going anywhere I've posted a dispute resolution request. Please take a look. Banedon (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC

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

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

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

Oppose inclusion. The core argument in favour of inclusion is that the allegations have been covered in newspapers. That's nowhere near enough. This argument misses the point: that coverage of an allegation in sources is the minimum requirement for inclusion. Our BLP policies, including but not limited to WP:BLPGOSSIP require us to exercise editorial judgement about the nature of the allegations, the extent to which they have been proven, the extent to which they are germane to the subject's public life or are merely private scandals, and their relevance and noteworthiness. That being the case, a number of facts need to be outlined here:

The most that has been alleged is that the person in the sex tape may be Anwar Ibrahim. In other words, the man may bear a resemblance to Anwar. Anwar and his family have consistently denied it is him.
The sex tape was released to the Malaysian media by three men. Two are former United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) politicians; the other is an UMNO-linked businessman.[13] UMNO is Malaysia's governing party; Anwar is the opposition leader, having left UMNO, rancourously, in 1998. The sex tape was released to the media shortly before an anticipated general election.
The allegation is that the sex tape was "hidden". If the subject is Anwar, the tape was, obviously, filmed without his consent and possibly involved the commission of a criminal offence.
The allegations received air time in the Malaysian mass media (eg [14]). But they stopped short of actually alleging that Anwar was the man in the tape. Further, the Malaysian mass media is, by any objective standard, sympathetic to UMNO and unsympathetic to Anwar (source, in case anyone needed it to support the bleeding obvious). We should not genuflect to their editorial judgement in publishing the allegations. A genuinely unbiased and careful media environment would have seen a different approach.
The allegations received some limited coverage in international press (example). However, this coverage was not in the context of "a credible and relevant allegation has been made". It was in the context of "look at the state of Malaysian politics". As the Wall Street Journal said (linked above), in Malaysia "Claims of sexual impropriety often overshadow policy debate", and "Many such allegations have targeted Mr. Anwar". The sceptical nature of the coverage in international media actually demonstrates why Wikipedia should exercise extreme caution. Again, it is absolutely not a case of "it received coverage so we must included it".
Anwar's elected political career has lasted over 30 years. He has been a Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Opposition Leader. Coverage of this transitory and salacious matter in his biography is out of all proportion to his overall life.
There is no suggestion that the allegation relates to any impropriety as a politician or any criminal activity. It is purely sexual.

Personally, I'm no fan of Anwar. But Wikipedia should not fall into the trap of repeating scandalous and irrelevant sexual allegations against a living person, especially in the factual context outlined above. Our duty as an encyclopaedia, as outlined in our fundamental BLP protections, requires us to do better. Wikipedia has never just repeated what the newspapers say. We shouldn't start now. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No. If an allegation is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article then it should be covered regardless of the veracity of the claims. As that does not apply, the issue concerns whether the allegations have encyclopedic importance because not everything that is verifiable is included in an article. A biography is not the place to record every allegation made against a person—no source does more than claim the video shows someone with a "resemblance" to Anwar, and no source suggests there will be any investigation or other outcome against Anwar. Per WP:NOTNEWS an article is not a repository for ephemeral news-of-the-day, and per WP:BLP an article is not available as a permanent memorial for an attack. If a notable person had made the allegations, the issue could be explored in their article, but nothing about this case has any enduring effect. The situation can be re-evaluated in the future if further developments show encyclopedic significance. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - per basic WP:BLPGOSSIP - the sources don't seem to say anything beyond there being a sex tape of someone who looks like Ibrahim --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is not a tabloid, nor ought we ever inflict harm on a living person absent strong sourcing. Right now, it appears that the possibility of harm must outweigh our desire to be "complete". Collect (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Support per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That there are no sources that explicitly claim it is Anwar in the video is to be expected, since it is almost impossible to prove the person is guilty as charged without an admission, and responsible journalists will therefore not claim that Anwar is the person in the video. That the Datuk T trio are all UMNO-linked and the mainstream media is biased against the opposition is not really relevant; without conclusive facts we cannot and should not conclude either way; omitting the section is essentially a conclusion that Anwar is not the man in the video. It's because the known facts are inconclusive that the original write up listed it as an allegation, not fact. That the way the film was procured may not be legal is not relevant in a court of law and shouldn't be relevant on Wikipedia either. That the international press thinks the allegations are skeptical should be included as such in the article ("International sources do not think the allegations are credible" or something like that). While it's arguable that the section if included would be disproportionately overweight the significance that section deserves, that is not an argument to not include the section entirely—it is an argument to expand the other sections. And finally the section would provide context either way. If Anwar is the man in the video, then the allegations should be reported; if he is not the man in the video, then allegations would provide context that he is the victim of a government-linked smear campaign.

Given that the sources are reliable, the deleted content reported what the sources said fairly and that the incident was judged significant enough for multiple newspapers (including international ones) to cover, I do not think the section violates BLP:GOSSIP, and should therefore be included. Banedon (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Summoned here by bot. ~~Oppose inclusion as it appears to be an unproven smear that didn't get much mileage. However, if it has repercussions in the future then it has to be included.~~ Support inclusion, but not at the length in the diff provided at top. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I've reconsidered per below. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi User:Coretheapple and thank you for your comment. I'm not sure if you had time to examine all the sources. The alleged event occurred in 2011 and is one of several "scandals" that have plagued his career and created controversy. It has been discussed in almost 50 news articles (see below) and was not minor 'news of the day'. Also, Ibrahim was imprisoned this month, after being found guilty of an unrelated, Malaysian sex crime. This may or may not effect your position but I thought I'd mention these points for you to consider.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh it certainly does potentially change my view. I have to run out. I'll give it further thought and examination upon my return. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of the content that was removed by this edit. This removed content summarized the "allegations" and the controversy surrounding them including Anwar's denials. This information was reported in more than 35 news articles and should not be censored. These reliable sources include:

The Wall Street Journal
The Economist
Indo-Asian News Service
Associated Press [15][16] [17]
The Star [18][19][20]
Free Malaysia Today [21][22][23][24][25][26]
Malaysia Kini
Hindustani Times [27] [28] [29][30] [31][32] [33][34] [35][36][37]
New Straits Times [38] [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]

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

@Keithbob:I think you raise a valid point. I guess the question is whether this was a flash in the pan. It's been four years now. What became of this? It smacks of a transitory tabloid frenzy, but if it isn't I will certainly reevaluate my thoughts on this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Personally, I wouldn't consider the above sources tabloids and the coverage and controversy was intense and went on for several months. WP:GOSSIP says: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. In my view the sources are reliable and the controversy relevant. But each may have their own view. Thanks for taking a second look. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You do realise, don't you, that the Star and the New Straits Times are both stridently anti-Anwar? Did you look carefully through all those links? I'd hate to think that you didn't, with a living person's reputation on the line. If you did read the links, in how many of them is it shown that these allegations had any more relevance to Anwar's biography than as a transient sensationalist story? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Point of note, even excluding The Star and New Strait Times—both major newspapers in the country despite the anti-Anwar slant—there are still at least seven different newspapers that reported the allegations. I don't see what else the newspapers could have said either. What more did you think they should have said for the allegations be included: to claim that Anwar is / is not the man in the video? How can a responsible journalist say that without proof? Banedon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Include a passing mention in Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials as part of an 'Aftermath' section at the end of the article that briefly summarises his activities after the trials. This is the same kind of sexual smearing and can be dealt with in the same place. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The latest sodomy trial ended only a few weeks ago, and as far as I'm aware, Anwar is currently in jail. His "activities after the trials" then are simply being in prison. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this can be done. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support a passing mention of the controversy, given the abundance of sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:BLPGOSSIP but also to counteract possible negative effects of User:Keithbob violating WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:CANVAS by following up User:Johnuniq's earlier, perfectly good and neutrally-worded BLPN posting with his own new thread about how ""sourced content" is "being excluded from the article". Poor show. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, but everything in your personal attack is incorrect:
- WP:RFC says:" To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
- My comment at BLPN was a neutral summary of the RfC. " regarding sourced content that is being excluded from the article due to BLP concerns". I did not say whether I was in support or opposition of those BLP concerns.
- User:Johnuniq's post not a neutral summary. It was an expression of his position. As it should be.
- Please restrict your comments to matters of content per WP:TALK. I respect your position and thank you for participating in the RfC. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  - Hijiri 88 was referring to my notification at WP:BLPN on 20 February 2015, 3+1⁄2 days before your post which included the commentary "sourced content that is being excluded from the article" and an image. Nothing in Hijiri's post approaches a personal attack. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    - Don't want to wade into this—it is rather irrelevant with the subject at hand—but I suspect Keithbob didn't see Johnuniq's notification. I certainly didn't until I saw Hiriji88's post above. I think Keithbob's comment is slightly non-neutral; calling the removed text 'sourced content' gives it an air of legitimacy that 'content' doesn't convey. On the other hand Hiriji88's comment is a clear personal attack. Everything after the first three words is a criticism of Keithbob, and has nothing to do with Anwar or the sex tape. As Mkativerata said, This is not what a better editor than I would say. Now let's show some maturity and stay on topic. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      - That has some sound advice, but "personal attack" should not be unchallenged. A weak case could be made that Hijiri's remarks are somewhat off-topic (like several others including this!), but there is no way that WP:NPA includes anything like the comment above—the mistaken claim of a "personal attack" is itself a personal attack on Hijiri (see WP:ASPERSIONS). WP:NPA has nothing to do with the comment above; in the same way, WP:CENSOR has nothing to do with this RfC and no censorship is proposed. I said "weak case" because it is perfectly acceptable to alert participants in an RfC know that an inappropriate notification may have been used. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
        Okay, I provided just as much content-rationale for my !vote as most other people (WP:BLPGOSSIP), but I also thought it was necessary to draw attention to the fact that Keithbob's post was inappropriate. I admit it's possible (in fact probable, in light of his response to me above) he didn't see Johnuniq's earlier notification, but the wording he used is likely to bias other users in favour of inclusion. I saw his wording at was initially inclined to think Keithbob was actually arguing against inclusion here, and had gone too far in an attempt to check his own bias when posting a notification on BLPN. I find it disturbing to see that he not only had not made any attempt to check his own bias, but is actually arguing that his post was not unbalanced and has called my characterization of such a "personal attack". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Although there are many sources detailing the sex scandals involving Ibrahim and other Malaysian public figures, I am having difficulty finding international sources that mention this 2011 sex tape. Before we discuss including it here (and to what extent), there should be a source in the international media. --Precision123 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See the list given by Keithbob above, citing several well-known international news sources. Banedon (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose BLPGOSSIP. It is not clear whether it was him involved or not. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oposed (WP:BLPGOSSIP) This remains unclear and sounds too much like tabloid and not encyclopedic. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Political views

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2384279/Article/

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"This move were..."

I hope someone can correct the grammar in this article.80.60.103.23 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Anwar Ibrahim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Anwar Ibrahim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928054036/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/9573-umno-meets-tomorrow-on-transition to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/9573-umno-meets-tomorrow-on-transition

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

AnwarIbrahim.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

10th PRIME MINISTER

He was made PM-elect on Nov 24. Someone edit the page pls 203.106.97.157 (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

there is no such office of PM-elect, and DS Anwar has not yet been appointed as PM, this will only occur at a ceremony with the YDPA scheduled for 5 pm malaysia time or 9 am UTC, 24 November 2022. Bcmh (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The correct term for Anwar was Prime minister–designate prior to his swearing. WWGB (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Response to Financial crisis

Does the issue "Response to Financial crisis" mean either a) print your own money, or b) borrow money?

If it means 'borrow money' then this might lead to accusations of corruption unless such an agenda is fully disclosed to the electorate.

Can someone provide more information regarding this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.104.106 (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Anwar Ibrahim Crop.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)