Talk:Clare Rewcastle Brown

Autobiographical editing

Recent edits to the page seem to establish that the subject or an associate, specifically under the Samuel London account, is editing the content in a non-neutral, autobiographical manner. The following evidence supports this claim and discussion is encouraged:

• The correction of the names of the subject's parents, which are neither public domain information nor referenced.
• Edits to the Wikipedia page of the subject’s spouse and the page for her website.
• Extensive, long, and detailed edits lacking references, which are only cited after being reverted or queried by other users.
• A significant reliance on sources from the subject's blog or books.
• A non-neutral portrayal of the criminal litigation involving the subject and a Malaysian royalty figure.

Allthingsm1 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not the subject of the article though I have a close familiarity with her work and the 1MDB saga. Responses to the points above in turn:

- The names of the subject's parents are public domain and I had carefully referenced them. (I note that Allthingsm1 has found a further public domain reference to them and has thereby added their middle names, which I was not aware of.)

- As it is my field of interest, it is hardly surprising that I have edited a few other pages on overlapping subjects.

- I am a newbie here and admittedly I did not include all citations before publishing. However in my subsequent edits over the next couple of days, I added citations for the whole article. I fail to see how the fact that the citations were added slightly later is relevant to the reliability of the contributions.

- There are very many citations I added which are not of the subject's website or book. But I note that citing the source's own website or book is permissible within Wikipedia's policy. Furthermore, the website (and book) in question are widely recognised in financial and journalistic circles as reliable, as the record of unsuccessful legal threats they have withstood from malefactors (several of whom have subsequently been convicted of crimes and imprisoned as a result of the information published on the site) attests. In a similar vein with regard to reliability, note the number of stories Rewcastle Brown has uncovered and broken on the website in collaboration with high-profile newspapers such as the Sunday Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Edge. The number of important awards she has garnered for her investigative journalism surely also gives weight to the reliability of her news site. Therefore I do not accept that such citations are in some way invalid.

- I do not at all accept that my very factual portrayal of the criminal case involving Rewcastle Brown's sentencing to two years in prison for defamation of the Sultanah of Terengganu was non-neutral. Allthingsm1, on the other hand, introduced a tendentious rephrasing, which I have now reversed, which seemed to imply as fact that Rewcastle Brown suggested in the book the Sultanah wielded undue influence in Terengganu politics -- thereby begging the question of the very issue which was in dispute in the court. I have not (or at least not yet -- I think probably best to defer to neutral and experienced editors on this) reversed the other revisions about the case that he introduced, though his emphasis on quoting the detail of criticism made by the sultanate's court of Rewcastle Brown seems in contrast to his eagerness to abbreviate, elide and eliminate -- presumably on the grounds that they are not notable? -- the details of legal battles which unfolded in her favour (though I have likewise refrained from reversing those revisions, again leaving it for now to those more experienced than me to take a view on what constitutes notable).

Since the above comments begin by casting aspersions on my neutrality, I am afraid I think it is only fair to ask Allthingsm1 to consider whether he has any affiliations he should be declaring? Especially given the documented history of smear campaigns against Rewcastle Brown, including through the editing of this page, and that there appears to be a puzzling tendency of the revisions he has made to minimise and abbreviate information unfavourable to Barisan Nasional, Najib and his family and to introduce very subtly disobliging references to Rewcastle Brown calling into question or minimising her work. This appears to accord to a longer-term pattern: I note that in January 2022 one of the earliest edits by Allthingsm1 to Wikipedia was to a page about Rewcastle Brown's website Sarawak Report in which he changed the opening line from 'Sarawak Report is a whistle-blowing site and political blog' to 'Sarawak Report is an opinion, commentary and political activism blog' https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sarawak_Report&diff=prev&oldid=1064626774 Given that its activity has principally been as a news site publishing highly newsworthy documents obtained from whistle-blowers or elsewhere revealing corruption (and resulting in some of the most significant global law enforcement action in the history of fighting kleptocracy), his rephrasing to eliminate the term 'whistle-blowing' and dismissively characterise it, as disgraced Prime Minister Najib's cheerleaders attempted to, foremost as an 'opinion', 'commentary' and 'activism' website is a rather telling indication that he is perhaps on shaky ground when preaching about bias. Samuel London (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and passionate response, @Samuel London. It is clear from the length and detail of your reply that you are deeply engaged with the subject matter, which could suggest some degree of bias. These remarks are not personal; they are about collectively enhancing the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia. Here are my thoughts on the points raised:

1. Citations and Timing: I recognise the challenges new editors might face. However, accuracy and timely citation are critical, especially for contentious information. It's good practice to include citations at the time of editing.
2. Use of Primary Sources: Utilising primary sources such as the subject's own writings is permissible, but an over-reliance on these sources can lead to a biased portrayal. This is particularly controversial when the subject is ongoing litigation involving the author of the primary sources. Expanding our sources to include a broader spectrum of secondary material is essential to providing a balanced perspective.
3. Portrayal of Legal Issues: Maintaining neutrality in describing legal matters is essential. Regarding the edits about the Sultanah’s case, I noticed they were reversed by an anonymous IP user. I assume this was you, not logged in. My edits were intended to summarise the situation concisely, which is required for an encyclopaedic tone. Whether it involves a phrase, a paragraph, or a chapter, the essence of the case concerns libel, and the details should reflect that without implying guilt or speculation.
4. Characterization of Sarawak Report: In response to the previous discussions regarding my edits to the description of Sarawak Report, I maintain that the terms "gossip," "commentary," and "political activism" are accurate reflections of some facets of its output. The platform’s independent operation and the fact that it is managed by a single individual allow it to publish information more rapidly than traditional media outlets, which may undergo slower, more rigorous vetting processes. This agility has enabled Sarawak Report to break significant stories, such as the 1MDB scandal. However, the same operational characteristics have also resulted in instances of erroneous reporting, as seen with the incorrect reports about Jho Low’s nationality, the allegations concerning Kevin Morais’s death, and the purported text messages linked to Aker, which were later debunked. This dual nature highlights both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the platform.
5. Bias and Conflict of Interest: I appreciate your call for transparency. My goal is to ensure factual accuracy and neutrality. I am open to community commentary and further discussion to improve our editing approach.
6. Template Consideration: Given the ongoing concerns about the autobiographical tone of the article, I propose reinstating the ‘autobiography’ and ‘resume’ templates to alert readers and editors to these issues until they can be adequately addressed.

Let’s aim to work collaboratively and involve other experienced editors to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and verifiability.

Thank you, Allthingsm1

P.S. I prefer the pronouns she/her. Thank you for respecting this. (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Allthingsm1 for your reply and its general tenor of commitment to accuracy and neutrality with which I entirely concur. I must, however, take slight issue with the charge levelled in your second sentence “it is clear from the length and detail of your reply that you are deeply engaged with the subject matter, which could suggest some degree of bias.” This charge could just as readily be directed at you or indeed, I suspect, most people contributing to Wikipedia on a subject within their ambit – it can hardly be a qualification for contributors not to be engaged with their subjects! Nonetheless, I appreciate the collaborative attitude you emphasise and would likewise welcome further editorial discussion and the input of other editors. A few specific comments on your points:

1. Citations and Timing As per my previous message, I consider myself suitably admonished and shall endeavour to ensure all citations are added at the time of publishing any new material!

2. Use of Primary Sources I have no quarrel of course with the principle that as broad a range of reliable secondary sources is important. And that the subject’s writings are controversial as a principle source in cases involving ongoing litigation. However, as far as I can see the only ongoing litigation referred to on the page is that involving the Sultanah of Terengganu and the main sources for the case we are using there are media reports from Malaysiakini, the New Straits Times, the Malay Mail and the BBC. I would merely add that carefully using an involved party’s published writing on the matter surely remains appropriate to the limited degree of a source for that party’s claims, to elucidate the description of the case.

3. Portrayal of Legal Issues (the Sultanah of Terengganu case) Indeed, I was logged out on my computer and forgot to log in while inputting a few changes. Of course I agree that the case should be reported neutrally (notwithstanding the longstanding context of politically motivated persecution of Rewcastle Brown by arms of the Malaysian state, which I think is alluded to appropriately and sufficiently by mentioning a few of the large number of respected international organisations that have condemned the prosecution.) My principle concern with your revision, and why I amended it, was that it could easily be read to imply that Rewcastle Brown’s book suggested that the Sultanah wielded undue influence in state affairs and that the main question before the court was whether this were true. When in fact Rewcastle Brown’s position is that the phrase implied nothing of the sort and this is the major point in dispute on which the courts are being called upon to rule.

4. Characterization of Sarawak Report I think the issue here is not whether, as you put it ‘"gossip," "commentary," and "political activism" are accurate reflections of some facets of its output.’ (Though I certainly don’t think ‘gossip’ is.) But rather whether these are an appropriate summary of its foremost and principle output – which has been publications of leaked documents and investigations leading to the world’s biggest kleptocracy law enforcement actions. Clearly they are not. The Times of London publishes recipes and features on fashion models but I don’t think anybody would describe it foremost as a cookery and style publication. Your subsequent comments about the difference between its publication process and that of a large newspaper may well be true but don’t have a bearing on this. I am afraid that even large newspapers occasionally get things wrong and have to make corrections and though I have not conducted any statistical analysis from my familiarity with its output I would personally be most surprised if Sarawak Report were less accurate than mainstream media sources. Moreover, I’m not familiar with the errors you cite. As legal procedures tangentially relating to the Kevin Morais case are ongoing it may be that we should leave discussion of that aside for the moment but regarding your other examples of supposed erroneous reportage by Sarawak Report: I would be grateful, so as to become better informed on the matters, if you could elaborate. I was only very vaguely aware of the Aker case but I don’t think Sarawak Report took a position on whether the texts were fabricated or not but simply reported that the chief justice’s department filed a police case and began an investigation into them, so was there really an error there? And could you provide a link to anything about your assertion that they were later debunked as I had not realised they were. Also, what error about Jho Low’s nationality?

5. Bias and Conflict of Interest Quite agree!

6. Template Consideration Let us collaborate to adequately and expeditiously address any issues on this. Now that you have extensively edited it, I would be keen to hear what issues remain that you feel might justify the templates.

I agree that most of your further edits have improved the clarity, accuracy and neutrality of the article, but there are a few tweaks to them that seem judicious to me. Where it is not obvious I shall endeavour to be clear in the editorial comments on why I have introduced them. I am still only getting to know the ropes here but would it perhaps be appropriate for me to introduce a thorough discussion here on this Talk page of any edits which might involve a more significant point of contention? Samuel London (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Samuel London,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on my comments and for highlighting areas where we can deepen our discussion and refine the article further. Let’s dive into a few points:

1. Citations and Timing: I’m pleased we agree on the necessity of prompt citation. This practice solidifies Wikipedia's credibility and assists both readers and other editors in verifying content quickly.
2. Use of Primary Sources: It's reassuring to know that our primary sources for the Sultanah of Terengganu's case are robust and diversified. I appreciate your clarification about using primary documents to represent the parties' claims. Such careful selection of sources ensures we maintain an objective lens.
3. Portrayal of Legal Issues: Your explanation clarifies the edits you made whilst logged out. It’s essential that we avoid any language that could be misconstrued as implying allegations or conclusions not supported by the source material. This neutral stance is crucial, especially in politically sensitive cases.
4. Characterisation of Sarawak Report: I understand your concerns about potentially misrepresenting the primary nature of Sarawak Report's work. My aim was not to detract from its investigative achievements but rather to point out that its rapid dissemination of information might sometimes skip the stringent verification typical of larger newsrooms. Nevertheless, the term "gossip" may not fully capture the nuances of its reporting style. Here’s further elaboration on the examples you mentioned: a) **Jho Low’s Nationality**: Sarawak Report erroneously reported that Jho Low was an American citizen. Errors like this are significant, particularly when they involve key figures in major political and financial scandals. b) **Involvement of Najib Razak in the Kevin Morais Case**: Sarawak Report's suggestion that Najib Razak was involved in the kidnap and murder of Kevin Morais introduces substantial controversy. Such serious allegations, if unsubstantiated, could be seen as excessive. c) **Fabricated Text Messages**: The publication by Sarawak Report of what were later shown to be fabricated text messages highlights the dangers of reporting unverified information. Instances like this underscore the necessity of a thorough verification process to maintain journalistic integrity and trust. These examples are just a few illustrations and are not an exhaustive list. If you wish to explore these issues further, the underlying articles and reports can be easily found with a simple Google search. Let’s discuss how we might more accurately reflect Sarawak Report's contributions to journalism without simplifying its impact.
5. Template Consideration: I’m glad we can collaborate on refining the article further. Let's examine the remaining content under the 'autobiography' and 'resume' concerns to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standards.

I'm currently on holiday for a few weeks, but I look forward to resuming our collaboration upon my return. At that time, I'll revisit this thread and begin offering specific suggestions regarding the issues I've highlighted. Your detailed understanding of the topic greatly contributes to our goal of achieving accuracy and neutrality. I also appreciate more editors joining our discussion to enhance our work further.

Best regards, Allthingsm1 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. The only one of your points which seems to require a response is point 4. Firstly, you write of Sarawak Report: ‘the term "gossip" may not fully capture the nuances of its reporting style.’ This statement, extraordinarily denigratory of Rewcastle Brown's work, cannot stand unchallenged. The term ‘gossip’ doesn’t capture any element of its reporting style. Gossip on the internet is to do with which celebrity is going out with which, not the uncovering of huge thefts from the public purse. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that the writing style is sometimes informal, which is true.

To turn to the other specific points: I am leaving aside Kevin Morais-related discussion for the moment as it is not currently mentioned on the page but regarding Jho Low’s nationality and the supposedly fabricated text messages, I am afraid that I remain puzzled. You write, regarding the errors that you allege, that “the underlying articles and reports can be easily found with a simple Google search” but I have been unable to find them so I would be grateful if you could provide a link. In the second case, of the supposedly fabricated text messages, I have not come across anything online that shows that they were fabricated but even if they were, as per my previous message, it is hardly relevant to Sarawak Report’s reliability. This is because Sarawak Report was not reporting on whether they were genuine or not, simply that the Chief Justice’s department had filed a police case and begun an investigation into them – this was what made the story newsworthy -- and included in the Sarawak Report report was the allegation by one of the parties concerned that they were fabricated.

I have made some further revisions to passages and in those cases where there was not space in the publication comments box to explain the reasons for them, elaborate below.

i) 1MDB: China/Kuwait money laundering cycle

‘Rewcastle Brown reported on the involvement of Chinese state construction companies in allegedly laundering billions from 1MDB funds. These funds were reportedly channeled through overpriced contracts for railways and pipelines awarded by Najib Razak's Barisan Nasional government. According to her reports, tThe money was funneled through a Chinese bank in Kuwait and returned to Malaysia, purportedly to conceal financial discrepancies in 1MDB resulting from prior misappropriations.’

I don’t think we need ‘allegedly’, ‘reportedly’, ‘according to her reports’ and ‘purportedly’ when it has been proven in the Kuwaiti court (resulting in very long sentences for money laundering for the Kuwaiti members of the conspiracy). Surely such qualifiers do not need to be added for something accepted in a court unless there is a reason the jurisdiction’s validity/reliability is in doubt. Also, were the reports disputed, given the wealth and power of the entities and individuals accused it is surely inconceivable that they would not have taken legal action for defamation against Sarawak Report. I have therefore dispensed with these qualifiers in the absence of evidence that the descriptions of fact are disputed (other than by criminals convicted for it).

ii) Legal issues: Legal correspondence and civil actions: Taibs and Riza Aziz

‘Rewcastle Brown has frequently received correspondence from law firms such as Mishcon de Reya, Loeb & Loeb, and Taylor Wessing, representing clients, such as the Taib family and Riza Aziz, who alleged libel in her articles. These firms threatened legal action in response to her publications. However, when Rewcastle Brown chose not to remove the disputed content, no further legal actions were pursued.’

Reinstated mention of the Taibs and Riza Aziz because these are of particular significance in the history of Rewcastle Brown’s legal battles and the attempts by the subjects of her exposes to suppress reporting. A major aspect of Rewcastle Brown’s notability is her perseverance in facing up to such legal threats resulting in news stories getting published which otherwise may not have been. The Taib legal battles are integral to her story of acting as Sarawak’s only independent media. Riza Aziz legal threats were a significant element in uncovering the 1MDB story.

I have removed the qualifier ‘disputed’ as it is a loaded term giving the impression the content is widely disputed when it is not by anyone other than the subjects of the exposes.

iii) Legal issues: Legal correspondence and civil actions: Attempt to suppress book publication

In 2018, the law firm Schillings, representing Jho Low, who was already a fugitive at the time, liable to arrest if he entered the United Kingdom, issued legal threats against to attempt to prevent the UK publication of Rewcastle Brown’s book on the 1MDB scandal, The Sarawak Report: The Inside Story of the 1MDB Exposé. These threats led to the cancellation of the book’s publication by her publisher. Rewcastle Brown subsequently self-published the book but Schillings did not take legal action. Furthermore, Schillings launched a widespread legal campaign, sending communications letters and emails to global booksellers around the world and threatening litigation if they stocked her book or Billion Dollar Whale, another book about the 1MDB scandal. Booksellers who did not heed the firm’s warnings did not experience further legal actions.

Jho Low’s liability to arrest is important as an indication of the strange state of UK libel law (relevant to the story of legal warfare and why he sued in the UK). Important to point out that Schillings’s threats were empty and Jho Low did not sue for libel so added that. Mention of letters and emails (as opposed to, say, an announcement) significant to the wider story of SLAPPs as indicate the scale and expense of the legal campaign undertaken by Schillings so reinstated that. ‘Global booksellers’ implies just Amazon and a few big companies. Revised to reflect that the point is that they also sent letters to hundreds of tiny bookshops in little villages etc. Samuel London (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again @Samuel London,

Here are my responses to your comments.

I wasn’t critiquing the informal writing style, which, if anything, I believe makes the website more accessible and engaging to a broader audience, particularly given the often dry nature of white-collar crime topics. As a general note, the fact that Sarawak Report and Clare Rewcastle Brown were pioneers in reporting the 1MDB scandal speaks for itself, and I acknowledged this on the Sarawak Report page by noting it "gained wide recognition for its original and early exposure of the 1MDB scandal."

The term 'gossip' was used to indicate that Sarawak Report often publishes unverified information. 'Gossip' here does not refer to trivial celebrity matters but to unconfirmed reporting. Perhaps a different term would be more suitable, yet it seems our discussion hinges on whether we concur on this aspect of Sarawak Report's nature.

I argue that Sarawak Report does publish unverified information—much of which is later verified—affirming Ms. Rewcastle Brown’s credibility against her critics. However, it cannot be directly compared to a news site or an investigative journalism platform like Bellingcat, where the volume of content is more manageable relative to their resources for vetting. Moreover, it isn’t a leaked document repository like Wikileaks, designed to be decentralised and resistant to nation-state censorship.

While the Sarawak Report shares some characteristics with these platforms, it occupies a unique niche. The point of this comparison is not to diminish its achievements but rather to highlight them; the ability to produce impactful journalism with limited resources is indeed remarkable. My aim has been to accurately represent this novelty. If we are in agreement here, then ‘RUMINT’ could be considered a suitable descriptor amongst several. This reflects a trend where many industry-specific publications charge for subscriptions because people value timely, albeit unverified, intelligence—which often proves accurate—over outdated, verified information. However, unlike many subscription-based publications, Sarawak Report is a free resource. This accessibility contributes to its substantial following. Moreover, Sarawak Report is noted for breaking exceptionally newsworthy news at least once or twice a year, emphasising its significance and impact in journalism beyond simply disseminating unverified information.

Additionally, I had originally described Ms. Rewcastle Brown as an ‘advocate journalist’ on this page, a term that was subsequently altered. I believe this description remains apt as she actively champions anti-corruption efforts, has participated in rallies in Malaysia, and is highly respected by the reformist opposition there. Her involvement in the UK anti-SLAPP coalition further aligns with this label. This designation not only reflects her journalistic style but also her commitment to substantive change, which is central to her reporting and public engagement.

Regarding the other points, the article about Jho Low’s American passport can be found here: (link to the archived article).

I concede the point regarding Aker.

On other specific points:

i) I'm ambivalent about this, but if pressed, I’d opt for retaining the original phrasing due to concerns over the jurisdiction's validity and reliability. The Persian Gulf countries, apart from the United Arab Emirates, are generally recognised for their deficient legal systems. It's wise not to accept judgements from jurisdictions rated below 0.50 by the World Justice Project at face value. For instance, Kuwait's criminal justice system is rated at 0.47, below Burkina Faso’s 0.48. Kuwait ranks poorly for impartiality and freedom from government influence, scoring 0.24 and 0.27, placing it in the lowest tenth of the 142 countries ranked. These factors influenced my use of qualifiers when discussing the conviction of an out-of-favour royal in such a jurisdiction. Similarly, Malaysia’s criminal justice system, which controversially convicted Rewcastle Brown of libel, is rated at 0.56, with scores of 0.47 and 0.46 for impartiality and government influence, respectively, aligning with her challenges to her conviction given the plaintiff's royal status. This is also why actions from the Saudi Arabian purge are viewed with scepticism on Wikipedia. The sources for these rankings can be found here for Kuwait and here for Malaysia. Saudi Arabia is not ranked by the World Justice Project.

ii) I don’t hold a definitive view on this, but it's essential to recognise that only those deeply familiar with Malaysian politics and Rewcastle Brown, understanding the roles of individuals like Taib and Riza Aziz, can fully appreciate the nuances. For casual encyclopedia readers, it is sufficient to note that Rewcastle Brown has faced legal threats from major law firms, which ceased when she did not remove the contested information, suggesting possible intimidation.

I don’t believe the term ‘disputed’ implies that it is widely contested; it seems clear from the context that the dispute is specific to the law firm in correspondence. In any event, this point is rather academic, as the inclusion or exclusion of the word does not change the meaning of the sentence. I'm addressing this purely for the sake of thoroughness.

iii) Regarding the third point, I believe we should maintain the original wording used to describe Jho Low, as it ensures clarity and brevity. It is clear enough that he would be liable for arrest if he entered the UK, given his status as a fugitive. Although this isn't mentioned on the page, and this is merely in response to your comment, I think it's crucial to uphold neutrality. Thus, Rewcastle Brown's Wikipedia page is not the right place for subjective assessments of "the strange state of UK libel law," however valid those opinions might be.

I look forward to your thoughts and any further insights you might have on these matters.

Best regards, Allthingsm1 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I had never before come across the term RUMINT but Wiktionary online tells me it means 'Information of dubious veracity, particularly when grounded in rumor.' This is no better than 'gossip' and is certainly not a reasonable characterisation of the output of Sarawak Report. Rewcastle Brown was trained at the BBC where she worked for many years and it shows: a notable feature of her articles is how well they are verified, and the frequency with which they are backed up by her obtaining and publishing online relevant documents. This commitment to rigorously verified journalism -- rather than scattergun rumour-mongering -- is why her stories have had such global impact, the subjects of her stories have been unable to bring her down despite the legal onslaughts and she has won so many journalism awards and indeed is extraordinarily highly regarded in journalistic circles.  

Verification, or 'vetting' as you sometimes call it, is not some alchemical process which individual journalists are unable to do but large media corporations and newsrooms have some magical switch enabling them to undertake. Verification is about obtaining sufficient proof of a story -- whether through multiple human sources you judge to be reliable or documents you judge to be authentic or, often, a combination of both -- such that you are in a position to make the judgement that the story is incontrovertibly true and you can publish it. It is of course true that large media organisations have one or more extra editorial layers and more heads to put together in making this judgment and a journalist operating alone needs to be even more punctilious, not least because of the risk of potentially being ruined by libel cases, if taking on the responsibility of making such judgements alone.

But the assertion you seem to making that Sarawak Report is principally publishing early but unverified rumours, versus mainstream news organisations who are going on to verify them (in some unspecified but apparently infallible way), simply does not hold water. You describe industry intelligence websites which do the former and lump Sarawak Report in with them. I am not necessarily familiar with the websites you have in mind but I imagine if this is how they operate that their stories are rather general and that they are very careful not to publish articles which accuse particular rich and powerful individuals of anything untoward as they would likely face quick oblivion through libel cases if one of their unverified stories turned out to be incorrect. Sarawak Report, on the other hand, is habitually naming and exposing the crimes of some of the worlds richest and most powerful individuals. With an MO like that, and unlike anonymous sites a known writer/editor, Sarawak Report has only survived because of Rewcastle Brown's exemplary journalistic rigour and care to verify her stories before publishing.

To turn to the other points: I do see your argument for the term 'advocate journalist' (which I have never come across before) but I remain wary of its use because of the context of years of concerted efforts by the PR agents of kleptocrats exposed by Rewcastle Brown, including here on Wikipedia, to dismiss her as not a 'journalist' but a 'campaigner' and thereby to imply a partiality that brings into question her journalism. It is important not to risk giving support, even inadvertently, to bad-faith mischaracterisations which the introduction of this uncommon term might do. Moreover, the term journalist is eminently sufficient -- many journalists, especially those who specialise in what might be described as investigations, are evidently from their work driven by a sense of moral outrage but it does not mandate a qualification of the term 'journalist' to describe them.

Thank you for the link to the Sarawak Report article from 2015 about Jho Low's relocation to Taiwan which mentions that he has an American passport. You have cited this as an example of Sarawak Report's unreliability. If this detail, rather inconsequential in the 1MDB story, is one of the few errors that can be identified in the hundreds of stories published in the site over almost fifteen years, rather than constituting an indictment that would imply to me that the site stands up impressively well against mainstream news organisations in terms of reliability! However, are we sure that this is in fact an error? I come to this passport story from a position of complete ignorance, it has never come to my attention before, but on a cursory search I cannot find anything online either confirming or contradicting it. Out of interest, as I am keen to keep on top of the 1MDB saga as far as possible, if you have a link that suggests the information about the American passport is inaccurate, I would be grateful if you could post it here. (Indeed if you have such a reference and were also to draw it to the attention of Rewcastle Brown, I imagine that the website, like any responsible news organisation, would add a correction to the story.)

On the points numbered in our previous exchanges:

i) Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the question of the qualifiers 'allegedly' etc in the description of the Malaysia-China-Kuwait money laundering episode. Like you I do not have very strong views about it but notwithstanding the World Justice Project ratings you quote I still tend to think the qualifiers are redundant in this case because it is not solely a question of to what extent generally one can rely on the authority of the Kuwaiti court. For a start, the prosecutions, as stated by the Kuwaiti court documents, were pursued in close co-operation with the Malaysian prosecutorial authorities who provided most of the documentation which proved the case so the judgement is essentially backed by the credibility of two jurisdictions, which, in the absence of any apparent high-level political context that would put it in question, makes it less likely to have been subverted. More significantly, chapter and verse of how the crime was committed, quoting details from documents of all the money transfers, have been presented to the public, as well as in the Kuwaiti court documents, by Sarawak Report and, in a press release with a flow chart of the money transfers, by Tony Pua, the highly regarded anti-corruption campaigner and former political secretary of the Malaysian Ministry of Finance. The claims have not been denied by the Chinese construction companies or the bank, ICBC, involved. It is simply implausible that a statement would not have been made by those entities denying the highly publicised serious allegations were they in a position to do so. Their silence on the matter speaks volumes. Indeed, as far as I can see, the facts have not been questioned by anyone except the individuals convicted by the Kuwaiti court.

ii) I remain inclined to retain the references to Taib and Riza Aziz in the legal section because they illustrate the globalised nature of the litigation industry that journalists have to contend with and of which Rewcastle Brown has become a reluctant prime exemplar. Kleptocrats and their dependents expropriate enormous wealth in corruption-plagued parts of the world some of which provides a bounty for law firms in the UK, US and elsewhere in the West to undertake unwarranted litigation against those trying to expose the criminals. This relatively recent phenomenon is what has required and led to the emergence of the 'anti-SLAPP' movement and the mentions of Taib and Riza Aziz consequently give the legal threats against Rewcastle Brown significant context. As the reader is briefly apprised of the identities of both Taib and Riza Aziz higher up the page, I think their inclusion here is in this vein informative even to the casual encyclopaedia reader -- though of course I agree they cannot appreciate the nuances to the extent of those with a deeper familiarity with Malaysian politics.

I concede on your point regarding the retention of the word 'disputed'.

iii) I also see your point that the description of Jho Low as "liable to arrest if he entered the United Kingdom" is an unnecessary elaboration which could come across as falling short of a sober encyclopaedic tone and I am content that it be struck out; indeed, I shall do so now.

I approve of your most recent edits (about Bell Pottinger) and hope that you have been having a good holiday. Samuel London (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting the Section on the Sultanah of Terengganu's Libel Case

Hello everyone,

I would like to focus our discussion on the portrayal of the ongoing criminal libel case involving the Sultanah of Terengganu. It's important to note that in the state where this case is being prosecuted, the complainant is a member of royalty, and the laws regarding libel differ significantly from those in other jurisdictions, such as the UK where libel is not a criminal offense.

Clare Rewcastle Brown has openly criticized the court, labeling it as biased and describing the litigation as 'revenge'. Additionally, various journalism protection NGOs have publicly condemned the case and the ruling. It is essential that our coverage includes these critiques to provide a balanced perspective.

Equally critical is representing the viewpoint of the court, which defends its proceedings with specific legal rationales. Including this perspective ensures that our readers receive a comprehensive overview of the case from all sides involved.

Our goal should be to present this complex situation in a way that is not only neutral and informative but also allows our readers to draw their own conclusions based on a well-rounded presentation of facts. I suggest we carefully review the current content and discuss potential revisions to ensure we achieve this balance. Avoiding excessive detail that might seem autobiographical is also advisable, as we should focus on the legal and ethical implications central to the case.

Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to your insights.

Best regards, Allthingsm1

Malaysian arrest warrant

Another instance of something not going to fruition, this seems more recentism WP:RECENT and 10 years from now would this warrant so much space?--AhmedFaizP (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The recent addition nullifies this section. If it is just allegations then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I think they both should be left off.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Clare Rewcastle Brown

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Clare Rewcastle Brown's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes.com":

• From Wikipedia: Naom Cohen (May 1, 2014). "Media: Open-Source Software Specialist Selected as Executive Director of Wikipedia". The New York Times.
• From Sarawak Report: Mullany, Gerry (16 August 2013). "Barred From Malaysia, but Still Connecting With Critical Jabs". The New York Times.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Original creation and editing of this page to discredit Clare Rewcastle Brown and her work

I would like to draw other editors’ attention to the need to be particularly alert in ensuring that this page is not misused to discredit Clare Rewcastle Brown and her investigative journalism because there is an intense history of attempts to do so online, including through this page (and often through quite subtle denigration). This page was originally created by the user Yaya222010, one of eight users blocked by Wikipedia as ‘sockpuppets’ implicated in a campaign by FBC Media to smear Rewcastle Brown and discredit her investigation of FBC.

Subsequently, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism uncovered that the user Biggleswiki was being used by the PR firm Bell Pottinger to discredit Rewcastle Brown and her work on behalf of the chief minister of Sarawak, Abdul Taib Mahmud. Her page was one of several targeted by Bell Pottinger using at least ten ‘sockpuppets’. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales confronted Bell Pottinger over their attempts to subvert Wikipedia in this way and told the Independent newspaper “I am astonished at the ethical blindness of Bell Pottinger’s reaction. That their strongest true response is they didn’t break the law tells a lot about their view of the world, I’m afraid.” Biggleswiki was blocked after an internal Wikipedia investigation.[1] The case is described on the Wikipedia page Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. It was also widely reported and discussed in some depth in an article in the New Yorker magazine, The Reputation-Laundering Firm that Ruined its Own Reputation.[2]

A notable feature of these smear campaigns, as described for example in the above article, has been that they have not just concentrated on Rewcastle Brown and other subjects’ Wikipedia pages but involve the creation of ‘fake news’ websites (and social media profiles) as supposedly reliable sources. Therefore I simply wanted to note that this is also something for editors to be vigilant about on this page when considering citations. Samuel London (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Allthingsm1 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this. I wasn’t aware of the New Yorker article and found it quite enlightening. I’ve added details about the PR firm’s tactics as they directly relate to the harassment Clare Rewcastle Brown endured, and I’ve streamlined the text for clarity. Feel free to revert the changes if you think they don’t improve the article, but I was inspired to contribute after reading. Allthingsm1 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)