Talk:Khairy Jamaluddin

NPOV

We might have the problem of NPOV in this article. Though I don't really trust that guy, we have to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. __earth ^(Talk) 14:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Agreed with Earth. The article seem to be based mostly on hearsay with poor reference source. Please improve the article through balance writing and credible sources rather just hearsay. --Suryasuharman 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

right, we should relieve on blogs and unpublish works, that definitely POV.--Towaru 12:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I chucked out unsourced material and those that made incredulous claims without reliable sources, in line with the policy on biographies of living people. I have requested citations and verification for a number of other controversial statements, and added a source for one of Khairy's quotes. The writing style has been cleaned up a bit to reduce the anti-Khairy bias. (Someone should probably check up on that "lukewarm response" to his paper on the Economic Jihad, though.) Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

"...cronies to milk lucrative contracts offered by GLCs in Malaysia." Rewrite :- ...associates in a favourable position in order to secure lucrative contracts offered by GLCs in Malaysia.

Note : Yeah, he is an absolute dickhead. But let us not taint Wikipedia by emulating KJ's fascist and opportunistic stance.

"With a thesis like that, one wonders how he managed in Oxford. "

Rewrite :- Expunged.

I think it warrants a place in Discussions, not on the front page.

Babyrina2 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased mainstream media

For my opinion, it is hard to find sources from mainstream media that is non-biased towards Khairy. It is due to the fact that the government has controlled the mainstream media and therefore many sources from this article are obtained from underground resources. Hezery99 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Its true, I am very agree with this. All mainstream media in Malaysia was controlled to support Goverment. An example is an issue with the Lojing Highland in Kelantan. Limap5 07:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Khairy a part of Wikiproject Judaism?

How so? If the guy's a Jew, then I'm Jesus Christ.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.97.224 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, it was a bot that put that WikiProject banner in. Since bots make poor judges, you know what to do. - Two hundred percent 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I see that the problems of NPOV, amongst others, have been raised many times before, but the article is still full of contents contrary to Wikipedia policy, guidelines and foundation issues.

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. WP:BLP

Therefore, I've deleted the first section in Controversies and Criticism for contravention of amongst others the following Wikipedia foundation issues and editorial principles - WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE, WP:NOR

The sub-title itself is malicious and does nothing but cast libelous aspersion to the subject matter (see False light).

The first two sentences sentence falls foul of several Wikipedia policy especially WP:BLP contained in the first box above. These two sentences are surely "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

The third sentence is actually about how Malaysiakini had to apologize for false/mis-reporting. Leaving it there would certainly be casting unfair aspersion on the subject matter. (see False light).

As for the last two paragraphs, again they are contrary to so many Wikipedia policies. Sufficient for me to point out they are against WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrishenG666 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have removed the first sub-section under Controversies and Criticism. All materials in the sub-section, including the title, are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, amongst others WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE, to name a few. Please note that Wikipedia guideline says,

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. WP:BLP

The burden of evidence is with the author putting the stuff in, not with the editor taking it out. Sufficient for me to cite the three Wikipedia guidelines above. There are many other guidelines and Wiki principles which the deleted the subsection offended. Please read them especially WP:BLP.

WP:NOR

Introduction to the category is the writer's own opinion. Please note that No original research is one of three core content policies of Wikipedia. If you have original research or commentary to contribute to a subject, there are numerous other places to do so, such as at WikiInfo.

Quoting WP:NOR, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."Mekhdi (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, WP:VERIFY

I have expunged the term "controversial" relating to the merger in the first line of ECM Libra. This is an opinion of the writer and to me contrary to WP:NOR. Please cite reliable source if the writer want to revert using this term to describe the merger.

As for the line talking about the loan, this is contrary to the Wikipedia policies of WP:SOURCE, WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY and WP:LIBEL.

I've also removed a source from a personal blog, as this constitute unreliable source under WP:SOURCE. To include or argue about the inclusion of this source, use the Wikipedia procedure of discussing it first on Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard.

To quote WP:BLP, "We must get the article right.Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Using this guideline amongst others, I've deleted the link from the personal blog. Please use as guide WP:BURDEN, WP:SOURCES and WP:REDFLAG before reverting back to using the link from the personal blog. Note what WP:REDFLAG says - "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"!Mekhdi (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)