Talk:Mahathir Mohamad/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Anti-semitism

I am surprised that there is mention of only one instance of Mahatir's anti-semitism. Throughout his time as Prime Minister he made many offensive and anti-semitic statements. This should at least be noted in the intro. He was not just anti-Israel, but rather quite racist against jews. Xtra 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? Funny because he doesn't talk about Jews everyday or every week neither every month. It was just that one "Jews rule the world by proxy" speech. __earth 18:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well there were his well-known 1997 remarks, attributing the currency collapse to the Jews, but they've been added to the record.--Rostov 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction. He attributed the collapse to George Soros and other speculators, not Jew as a whole. __earth (Talk) 04:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The quote I added explicitly named Jews, not simply Soros alone. It belongs in here. It was newsworthy and much-noted at the time. Please explain why you wanted to delete an actual quote from the man - one I've been able to verify through Lexis-Nexis. --Rostov 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it because there were no citation the first time you added the quote. Since you have added it now, then there's nothing to disagree of. __earth (Talk) 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Cool. --Rostov 14:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid Weasel Terms

I have removed a number of editorial comments, attributed to anonymous "critics" in violation of WP:AWT. If such "critics" actually exist, they should be identified appropriately in a section entitled "criticism," which is the standard format for biographical articles. I would ask Xtra and Willmcw to avoid inserting their POV in this article, and the use of Weasel Terms is symptomatic of that. I also removed "American individualism" as a counterpole to Asian values -- there is no school of economics called "American individualism." It's a novel, POV usage, and unless there is a specific source for it, it should go. Asian values are clearly in opposition to laissez-faire capitalism. --HK 07:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

One reference (plenty more if you realy want) "The right to remain outspoken" South China Morning Post, November 22, 2004, Behind The News; Pg. 16. Now stop with the POV reverts. Xtra 09:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have inserted no POV into this article. Check my edits HK. My edits are have not at any stage been POV insertion. However, removing even handed comment is POV. Xtra 09:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue in WP:AWT is not whether the comment is "even-handed," but whether it is verifiable (see also WP:V.) If you provide a source, then the reader may evaluate the comment in terms of where it originates. In this case, I have done your work for you: "The right to remain outspoken" is based on an interview with Anwar Ibrahim, and the "cronyism" comments come from author Kerry Collison, who served in the Australian Air Force with a high security clearence and was subsequently involved in spooky activities in Indonesia, suggestive of intelligence work (see [1].) He also authors books alleging a variety of conspiracies by Muslims against the West. If you think that Collison is a suitable source for Wikipedia, then by all means quote him (with attribution), but I wouldn't put his views in the introduction to the article. I also request that you edit in a civil and responsible manner, rather than simply reverting; for example, you re-inserted the business about "Asian values vs. American individualism" without providing any explanation. If that goes in again, you should explain why, preferably by providing a verifiable source. --HK 16:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Cronyism" charges:
  • After decades of subservience, Anwar Ibrahim did the unthinkable and spoke out against the corrupt Mahathir bin Mohamad, the mismanagement of the economy, the cronyism, the corruption.
www.heureka.clara.net/sunrise/anwar.htm
  • When critics complain about Malaysia's brand of crony capitalism,...[2]
  • ...the hopes of those who want a more liberal, less crony-ridden Malaysia.[3]
  • That gives it the leeway to pursue the pro-business policies that over years have drawn foreign direct investment as well as allegations of cronyism.[4]
And so on. -Willmcw 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with creating a "criticism" section, where the criticisms are properly attributed. However, putting the criticism anonymously in the intro creates the impression that these criticisms are universally shared, an explicit violation of WP:AWT. Also note that neither Xtra nor Willmcw have responded to my request that some justification be offered for "Asian values vs. American Individualism," a specious and incompetent argument. --HK 03:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Under your arbitration ruling HK, you are not permited to repetedly delete text from articles to push your POV. I ask you to stop or I will be forced to take this matter up with an admin. Xtra 03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

HK removed the text on "cronyism" because it was unsourced. I found several sources but he reverted th material anyway. As for "Asian Values", it is more than simply an economic policy and I've removed the comparison to supposedly American values, which was a false dichotomy. -Willmcw 03:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What I am requesting is that the sources be provided in the article. That is the point of WP:AWT -- to prevent the use of propagandistic techniques, i.e., the implication that a view is widely held, without revealing just who it is that holds the view. For example, taking a look at the sources provided by Willmcw, they are all from either Western financial writers -- who maybe, just maybe, have a bias against Mahathir for his successful stand against the IMF -- or from supporters of Anwar Ibrahim, who is seen by many Malaysians as a cat's paw for Western financiers. A possible exception is http://www.kiat.net/; I took a look at that one, and wasn't sure exactly what to make of it. It looks like a blog of sorts.
It seems straightforward to me. Most readers don't go to the talk page for clarification of the article, so please source the criticism in the article.
Otherwise, thanks for removing the false dichotomy, but kindly remove "authoritarian" from "state-led capitalism" -- it is POV. "State-led capitalism" -- properly called Dirigisme -- is no more "authoritarian" than the "financier-led" or "IMF-led" capitalism preferred by the laissez-faire advocates. --HK 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
"Asian values" include support for authoritarian governments. "Dirigisme" is a separate, French-derived concept. I don't understand your issue about sourcing the cronyism allegation in the article. I've added the sources there. What more do you want? -Willmcw 18:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Leave "authoritarian" in the sentence about critics. Your footnotes are fine. If you wanted to be really up-front, you might say "Western Critics." Wikipedia as a whole tends to be extremely Anglocentric, and editors simply take for granted that the only viewpoints that count are in the English-language press.
However, I request that you remove "authoritarian" from the sentence about "Asian values." The article, Asian values, which I presume is your source, says that proponents of Asian values "tend to support Asian-style authoritarian governments," which I think is itself POV and should be re-worked. The U.S. and British governments are being viewed with alarm all over the world for pursuing a policy of preventive war, torture and over-zealous internal security measures, but the last time I checked, I don't see references in Wikipedia to "Western-style authoritarian governments."
Regarding your objection to Dirigisme (dirigism in English, a standard economics term,) it is just as much of a "French-derived concept" as its opposite, laissez-faire, to which you have apparently no objection. English-speakers are generally familiar only with the latter concept, nowadays. --HK 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My point about Dirigisme being French is that it isn't Asian. We're talking about two separate, though overlapping, ideas. You may think that support for authoritarian governments in the Asian Values concept is POV, but NPOV requires that we include all POVs, so I don't understand your point. You'd have a tough time proving that no one things Asian Values includes support for authoritarian systems. Regarding "laissez faire", please check my edits again. Regarding "Western Critics" - I don't know that all of Ibrahaim's supporters are westerners. Mohamad has critics in Asia and in his own country. -Willmcw 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI, An essay on Asian values by Nobel Ecomics Prize winner Amartya Sen, "Human Rights and Asian Values"[5] that explicitly talks about its support of authoritarianism (though not in reference to Mahathir bin Mohamad). -Willmcw 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does require that we include all POVs -- wouldn't it be great if that were actually put into practice? -- but also requires that the POVs be sourced and verifiable. If a POV is simple baldly asserted as fact, i.e., "State-directed or dirigist economies are authoritarian," the reader is being asked to assume that the idea is universally accepted, which it is not.

Try to imagine this controversy as seen through the eyes of a non-WASP, the sort of non-WASP who would be unlikely to ever get published in the New Republic. The Western press employs a sort of Orwellian double-speak, where when the IMF is demanding genocidal reductions in the living standards of a Third World nation, they call it reform, where the looting of vulnerable economies is called free trade and sometimes even democracy, and where the practice of attempting to defend one's economy via Protectionism is always characterized as authoritarian. --HK 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We have sources that define "Asian values" as supporting authoritarianism. Since those sources are in the Asian values article I don't see a need to repeat them here. Dirigisme doesn't seem to have anything to do with political authoriatarianism. Let's keep the two separate. As for cronyism, we shoulnd't go into the details of attributions in an intro. It might be appropriate to have a paragraph detailing the allegations further down. -Willmcw 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If the sentence "He has been a very aggressive proponent of "Asian values" a form of authoritarian state-led capitalism" were modified to become "He has been a very aggressive proponent of "Asian values," a form of allegedly authoritarian state-led capitalism," I would consider that to be sufficiently NPOV and would move to unprotect. --HK 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Asian values is not a form of capitalism. Please read out article on the topic. If you wish, and have source to support it, we might say that he also supports state-led capitalism, but those two concepts should not be confused.-Willmcw 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely. The article is unprotected now, and I'll amend the sentence to say simply that he has been a very agressive proponent of Asian values. If that is not satisfactory to you, hopefully we can discuss it further and resolve it in a civil manner. --HK 14:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Please work this out. Use dispute resolution if need be. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected this page - please do not resort to revert wars if you still don't see eye to eye over everything. If there is a dispute, try one of the established dispute resolution procedures. Thanks. Izehar 12:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Attn. 68.48.23.45: the issue of whether Dr. Mahathir is an anti-semite is disputed. It is a matter of opinion, not verifiable fact, and therefore we must use language that reflects that. I changed your formulation to "Mahathir is regarded by many as an anti-semite." I hope that is satisfactory to you, but if it is not, you should discuss it on this page before reverting. --HK 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Economic policies preferred by some Western factions

  • Ibrahim was the preeminent Malaysian spokesperson for the economic policies preferred by some Western factions, as represented by Gore.

What is meant by this sentence? Which policies are these? -Will Beback 08:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed in some detail at the article Anwar Ibrahim. --HK 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The only sentence in that article which mentions Gore concerns his condemnation of the sodomy trial. There's no mention of any economic policies which he supports. -Will Beback 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added a cite which I hope perhaps may put your mind at ease. --HK 21:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback, please stop playing games. Your "summary" of what is in the article is completely POV; for example, the article says that "Not surprisingly, sections of Malaysian business reacted with hostility to Anwar as he began to implement the demands of the IMF at the end of last year for budget cutbacks, tough financial measures and the abolition of huge state-backed infrastructure projects. Anwar was sacked the day after Mahathir announced tight monetary and capital controls aimed at halting speculation in Malaysian stocks and currency, and easing credit restrictions for Malaysian businesses, many of which were teetering on the brink of collapse. ...many people are understandably sceptical about the "market reforms" championed by Anwar. After all, "the gale of creative destruction" has already produced a social disaster in countries like Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea and elsewhere, throwing millions out of work and into poverty virtually overnight." You assert that "Ibrahim was the preeminent Malaysian spokesperson for economic reform intended to root out cronyism and corruption," which evidently is your opinion, not that of the cited article. I am removing it as original research. I would also suggest that if you are itching for a POV battle over whether Ibrahim was the White Knight of Malaysian politics, do it at his article, not this one. --HK 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like my description of Ibrahim's economic proposals then please write your own, as I requested before, and please indicate which "Western factions" are being referred to. -Will Beback 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Western factions include the IMF and the government of the U.S. I think that it is neither necessary nor desirable to characterize Ibrahim's economic proposals; it opens a whole pandora's box of POV, because for the IMF, the creditor institutions, and the speculators, "reform" means acquiescence to their demands, which from their point of view is a very good thing, whereas from the point of view of those who must dwell in third world countries, "reform" is a euphemism for plunder. Perhaps you want to argue this point, but I don't think that this article is an appropriate venue. I believe that the present formulation is adequate and neutral. --HK 07:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim's proposals are already discussed in various places, such:

  • Anwar and his supporters tried to turn corruption and nepotism into major political issues, with Mahathir and his associates as the target, and this unleashed the wrath of the government. Many observers saw the engineering of Anwar's dismissal as the result of the triumph of the secular corporate nationalist old guard over the younger "green" or Islamist faction within UMNO, created after the popular Islamic youth leader, Anwar, had been brought into the government by Mahathir.

So there's no need to be coy about his reform proposals. Let's just say his reform proposals were supported by Gore. Either name the "Western factions" or leave them out. -Will Beback 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, you seem determined to introduce your POV, which seems to be that Ibrahim was campaigning for Truth, Justice and the American Way (actually, the latter category may be correct.) You must realize that all of this is disputed, and if you try to make the article into an endorsement of Ibrahim (and a de facto condemnation of Mahathir,) it is going to result in endless dispute. We will all be better off if you would accept neutral language. --HK 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that since the topic is so contentious that we remove the reference to his policies. It is a distraction from the intent of the paragraph, which is on Gore's criticism of Mahathir. -Will Beback 01:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing the reference to economic policy creates the highly misleading impression that the issue between Mahathir and Ibrahim, and the basis for Gores's intervention, was sodomy. That is clearly not the case. It is possible to note that there was a conflict over economic policy, in which Gore took Ibrahim's side, without announcing that one side was the good guys and the other, the bad guys. Your edits, proclaiming that Ibrahim was "fighting corruption and cronyism," or advocating "reform," were not helpful; I personally think that Ibrahim was selling Malaysia out to foreign predators, but I have refrained from tilting the article toward that POV. I urge you to show similar restraint. I think that this section, at present, is sufficiently neutral, but if you disagree, I would recommend a RfC. --HK 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed western into IMF and some policies into rate hikes. I hope that helps in disfussing the this little disagreement. But I disagree about Anwar being painted as one of the good guys. He was as corrupt as the other. He obviously had the most to gain with the IMF demanded "reforms". __earth (Talk) 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with this point of view, I think the article should just point out that some people consider Anwar to have been the good guy here and others accuse him of being motivated for the wrong reasons (with a source cited, of course). Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Has everyone here read the article? We're not talking about the lengthy mentions of Anwar in the article:
  • In 1998, attention around the globe was focused on Malaysia when the government brought sodomy and abuse of power charges against the former finance minister and deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar and his supporters tried to turn corruption and nepotism into major political issues, with Mahathir and his associates as the target, and this unleashed the wrath of the government. Many observers saw the engineering of Anwar's dismissal as the result of the triumph of the secular corporate nationalist old guard over the younger "green" or Islamist faction within UMNO, created after the popular Islamic youth leader, Anwar, had been brought into the government by Mahathir. In separate trials, Anwar was sentenced to six years in prison for corruption and nine years prison for sodomy, to be served concurrently. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the trials. [6] [7] The Anwar crisis sparked protests by some Malaysians, of all ethnic groups, and some of Anwar's supporters from UMNO regrouped around the intellectual-Muslim "Parti Keadilan Nasional" (National Justice Party). Failing to garner widespread support from Malaysians, "Parti keAdilan could only win only 2 parlimentary seats in the 1999 elections. In the subsequent 2004 elections, the party was nearly wiped out, with Wan Azizah, the wife of Anwar, winning one seat by the narrowest of margins, mainly based on sympathetic votes, and thereon ceased to be relevant.
The dispute here is about how, or whether, to mention Anwar again in reference to Gore's criticism under the section covering foreign relations with the United States, Mahathir bin Mohamad#United States:
  • Al Gore had been criticizing the charges made by Mahathir against Mahathir's former deputy Anwar Ibrahim, charges of sodomy and abuse of power. Ibrahim was the preeminent Malaysian spokesperson for the economic policies preferred by the IMF, which included interest rate hikes, among others. An article in Malaysia Today commented that "Gore's comments constituted a none-too-subtle attack on Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and more generally on governments, including Japan, that resist US demands for further market reforms." [8] Gore's endorsement for the reformasi (reformation,) asking for (among other things) the ouster of Mahathir, was anathema to Mahathir, and he remarked that "I've never seen anybody so rude." This also summed up the Malaysian expectation that one who is a guest should not show such discourtesy to the host.
In that context, the second sentence the one about the IMF that I have highlighted, is a distraction. -Will Beback 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

Many of the additions by Terrancommander are not factually accurate or in compliance with Wikipedia policy. We cannot speculate on Mahathir's motives for considering himself a "full Malay" without a source; it is original research otherwise. There is no policy requiring a Malay to be PM. The issue of Mahathir's relationship with his alma mater and Singapore appears to be a novel interpretation of events under our original research policy; could we have a source, please? "It must be noted" sounds biased, so I reworded it. The bridge was not vetoed by a "Malaysian majority". The government cancelled the project, citing opposition from the people. If anything, Mahathir appears to believe the majority supports him, since he is calling for a referendum on the bridge. The "deep down" is a "racist" remark was uncalled for and is clearly biased. The same goes for the "rude" and "Islamic radical" comments. Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Many of my sources derive from public speeches made by Mahathir himself, as well as from the newspapers (of which are copyrighted material), and I have no idea how to include these in. Perhaps you could help me to? The "full Malay" comes from Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography entitled "The Singapore Story", where it must be noted that Mahathir actually gave a good impression of himself to the public, praising the West and Singapore. It is also public knowledge that Malaysia has certain biased rules (e.g. all tourist guides in the country must be Malaysian). It is also mentioned in "The Singapore Story" that the leader of the 1960s MCA worked so hard, then realised that he could not be Prime Minister, for he was not a Malay. His attitude changed on being Prime Minister, however... If he is not a radical, there is no reason for him to say such things about Israel, which has done nothing wrong to him or his family personally. Why does he not speak up for countries like Cyprus, which was wrongly invaded by Turkey (similar to US invasions)? Simple. Turkey has a main Muslim majority of 50%, so he would support the invasion. It also occurs to me that Mahathir bears a certain resemblance to Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes racist comments and other comments without considering. Hope you can tell me how to further improve articles! :) --Terrancommander 15:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Also with many criticisms about the Malaysian government, the West and Israel over many small issues, I think we must agree that Mahathir is not an angel. As the first discussion note here says, it really seems that someone is trying to put him in a better light. Nowhere in the backgorund does it mention of Mahathir's rocky relations, only in small parts like "foreign relations". I'll try my best to find evidence. --Terrancommander 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If there are many sources, then provide it. __earth (Talk) 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can. Only problem is, you got to pay to access that news website. So the link is as good as a broken one. What I meant was, find free, accessible sources. I know BBC is free, but it isn't a Malaysian news agency, they can't be reporting what goes on everyday in Malaysia regarding Mahathir right? --Terrancommander 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So, can you or can you not? __earth (Talk) 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Terran, I haven't looked at your additions but whether or not your sources derive from Mahathir's speeches is largely irrelevant. If you are present an intepretation of Mahathir based on his speechs that is original research. It might help if to read the policy on original research. If you can find a reliable source who has provided such an intepretation, you can include it as someone's POV but you cannot include your POV. Were you to write up your POV and have it published somewhere and were it to be considered a reliable source, we might choose to reference it. But please DO NOT reference anything you yourself have written, although it would probably be acceptable to most editors if you were to suggest it for inclusion in the talk page if you clearly identify yourself as the author.
On the issue of sources, pay news websites (do you mean Malaysiakini?) are usually accepted if they are considered reliable and add something significant to the article. Also, while I've only done a quick read through of the article, it seems resonable enough to me. Of course, it can be improved as with many articles. The fact that Mahathir is not an angel is irrelevant. It is our job to provide a NPOV account of him, including criticisms and purpoted achievements not to tell the reader that Mahathir is not an angel. You might want to talk a look at the George W. Bush article (not excellent but I feel it's resonably neutral) and featured articles under politics Wikipedia:Featured articles#Politics and government to get an idea of what we should aim to achieve. I should add that given that you clearly have a strong POV about Mahathir please be careful when making changes.
I should add that's I find it strange you would suggest Mahathir must be a radical because Israel didn't affect him or his family. Many people are disguised by Israel's actions and policies, the fact that Israel has not affected our direct families (of course some would say all of humanity is our family) is not totally relevant. Finally when it comes to Turkey and Cyprus, are you aware that Turkey's invasion was in 1974 long before Mahathir became PM? Have you read the Cyprus article? The Cyprus situation is rather complex and comparing it to the US invasion of Iraq is rather bizzare IMHO. I'm not saying Turkey's actions were justified of course.
Nil Einne 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Many of my sources derive from public speeches made by Mahathir himself, as well as from the newspapers (of which are copyrighted material), and I have no idea how to include these in. Perhaps you could help me to? Wikipedia:Citing sources. The "full Malay" comes from Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography entitled "The Singapore Story", where it must be noted that Mahathir actually gave a good impression of himself to the public, praising the West and Singapore. Then provide the specific page number. I've read that book, and I don't remember the quote. It is also public knowledge that Malaysia has certain biased rules (e.g. all tourist guides in the country must be Malaysian). The point is that you were attempting to push a point of view by providing commentary on these policies. We aren't in the business of informing readers about our opinions; the best solution generally is to give the arguments of both sides and allow the reader to decide. It is also mentioned in "The Singapore Story" that the leader of the 1960s MCA worked so hard, then realised that he could not be Prime Minister, for he was not a Malay. Please learn the difference between de facto and de jure. De facto, no non-Malay can be PM; that is what was being referred to. (And even so, a number of people would dispute this claim, so stating this as fact is biased.) De jure, however, there is nothing preventing a non-Malay from being PM. Nothing at all. His attitude changed on being Prime Minister, however... If he is not a radical, there is no reason for him to say such things about Israel, which has done nothing wrong to him or his family personally. Why does he not speak up for countries like Cyprus, which was wrongly invaded by Turkey (similar to US invasions)? Simple. Turkey has a main Muslim majority of 50%, so he would support the invasion. It also occurs to me that Mahathir bears a certain resemblance to Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes racist comments and other comments without considering. Our articles are not supposed to judge their topics. Perhaps you haven't heard of our neutral point of view policy? Johnleemk | Talk 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bombing singapore

Some video of Mahathir joking about bombing singapore[9]--Paul E. Ester 04:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Relations - Australia

This sounds POV to me: The Australian penchant for telling its neighbours what to do is clearly a sticking point. and no references or citiations are provided. I'm going to get rid of it, unless there are some reasons not to. --Commking 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No response - it's done --Commking 09:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree it should have been removed as it lacked a citation but I think it's clear that there is the perception among many Malaysians, indeed I would say many SEAsians that Australia likes to tell its neighbours what to do. However the article already sufficiently addresses Mahathir's view of Australia IMHO and the related issue of the Malaysian public perception of Australia is best left for the Malaysia article or similar. Nil Einne 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nil. That's how SEAsians see the Australian government. __earth (Talk) 08:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A common perception in Malaysia I am sure. This is what their politicians have been telling their people via the media after all. I don't think you will find any Australians who have actually told Malaysia what to do? You'll only find local politicians saying such things. Here in Australia, the perception is that Dr. M was always eager to find something to bash Australia with - even if it wasn't true. No politician in Australia ever said that they wanted to be "part of Asia", but Dr. M still accused anyway (ironically; as if such a desire was a bad thing!). I remember him saying Australia had to be "more Asian" (whatever that meant) to get this; this thing Australia never wanted or asked for - The perception there among most people that being "more asian" is to have more corruption, gerrymander, authoritarianism etc. Even as he ruled the country during the crash of the ecomomy in the late 1990's, he explained it wasn't his fault, it was "speculators", rather than the government who should be blamed. During the boom times, it was of course his government that took the credit - not speculators. Such comments were usually aimed at a domestic audience, and never caused offence in Australia.
The people of Australia and Malaysia, view each other through a distorted vision provided by the Politicians, TV and Newspapers in their respective countries. Perceptions are one thing, realities are quite another.. --Commking 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Though I do agree politicians have something to do with it, notice that it's Southeast Asians in general, not just Malaysians. It's not something against the Australian people. It's the government. __earth (Talk) 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. Each time I go to SE Asia, I never experience any hostility from anyone. But it is ironic to me, that someone like Dr. M can make a speech and specifically tell Australia what do do (to be "more asian" for example), and the perception is the opposite? I'd really like someone to give me an example where Australia told a SE asian country "what to do". --Commking 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The recent spat with Indonesia is one. That oil concension with East Timor is two. Remember Howard's remark about forward forces (preemptive strike) that riled up even the Filipino? __earth (Talk) 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Indonesia - do you mean the Papuan guys who jumped on a boat and claimed asylum in Australia? It was in fact Indonesia who was trying to tell Australia what to do with these guys. In the end, the Aust. government won't repeat such asylum grants - Indonesia got their way. As for the East Timor oil thing, that was a negotiated agreement - not dictated by Australia. And as for the pre-emptive strike comment (Was it John Howard or Alexander Downer, I don't recall), that was just plain dumb, not a "telling Asia what to do" event? --Commking 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps yes or perhaps not. Regardless, I feel that we are moving off tangent and I'm not sure how this discussion helps make the article better. __earth (Talk) 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This went off a topic some time ago! I enjoyed it nevertheless. Thank you. --Commking 10:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chemical spray

Someone should add info on the chemical spray incident Nil Einne 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1997 Remarks

These were a startling omission. I think the record is served by including them. --Rostov 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

more on mohamad's antisemitism

I must hand it to the contributor(s) of this wikipedia entry. This is truly an astonishing whitewash. Mohamad, throughout his years as P.M. of Malaysia, was on record attacking Jews and almost any action Israel took on the world stage (war-related or otherwise). His remarks helped make anti-Semitism respectable among "moderate" Muslims worldwide and throughout SE Asia. Wikipedia's downplaying of the issue makes this so-called e-encyclopedia more similar than it would like to admit to the EB, which for decades (centuries) downplayed anti-Semitism or allowed it to flourish in that oh-so-urbane and proper British manner; you know, "we despise the Jews but we don't want them to be exterminated, and we're circumspect about it, not like those beastly Germans." I find this entire bio of Mohamad shameful and despicable. If you can't find the source quotes you haven't looked very hard, which makes me question your skills as encyclopedists. This incidentally is my first post on anything Wikipedia-related. Sincerely, Mackb

Friday, August 18, 2006 The word “anti-Semite” is it’s self a loaded term and causes problems with POV. It has been stated early in this article that he is controversial and outspoken. That having been said I believe that the more fair approach to dealing with a very important leader in Malaysian history would to be to focus on what he said and did without labeling or attributing motive and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions and make their own value judgments. Without objection there are a few lines in this article that I would like to clean up for grammar and readability but I will not touch POV issues at this time except to make some recommendations in this discussion.

Saturday Sept 16, 2006 The fact that Dr M uses the media effectively to point out the countless double-standards and hypocrisies prevalent in Europe is taken as an example of "anti-semitism". If Austria can have laws which prohibit criticism of one particular race of people, how is it considered "free speech" when public leaders using dubious 14th Century references criticise the respected leader of another world community? The Jewish community is possibly the only beneficiary of affirmative action on a global basis simply by using this "anti-semitism" stance. Nothing against them, they have had, as Dr M pointed out as reported in these web pages, 2000 years of learning to do that. But it is extremely hypocritical to try to eat the cake and have it too. I think this article on Dr M is pretty well-balanced and has reflected the story of a man in as much entirety as is possible, warts and all. Let us not try to muzzle Wikipedia editors with this misplaced protectionism.Reader58 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems more a testament to your own views about Jews than anything else. Austria's legal code attacks hate speech in general, and recognizes anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial as intrinsically hate speech. The principles behind these same codes offer protection to Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. These were the products of Austria's own experience, not anything done by Jews (very few of whom remain in Austria). Your anger about Benedict is ill-suited to the discussion here. --Rostov 18:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia - Pauline Hanson

Pauline Hanson was a former member of the Liberal party, and while her One Nation party had no direct connection with John Howard's party, it was widely perceived in Australia and elsewhere to be tacitly condoned by Howard

Absolute crap. There has never been any indication that John Howard supported Pauline Hanson. The idea is absurd. References please, or it's going to get wiped. --Commking 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - at the very least, it's pov. I've changed it. I'd like to see a reference suggesting that Mahathir suggested Howard supported Hanson, too. Chovain 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia

Today some edits occurred to this section in the article. There seems to be a dispute over whether or not Dr. M said this or that. As there are no references for any of this stuff, I am giving this oppurtunity for the anonymous contributor concerned to provide them. If not, I'll wipe it. --Commking 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, pish posh. Those quotations have been there for ages; your anonymous friend didn't add them, but merely removed some inappropriate attempts at rebuttal you'd added to the end. At that point, Chovain noticed that the quotations didn't appear to be referenced. Why, precisely, were you going to wipe them — rather than, e.g. looking for a reference? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for the line in question staying a little longer (in its current form). It doesn't seem implausible to me that he has said such things, but it will need to get a ref at some point. Anyone? (As an aside, let's keep WP:NPA and WP:AGF in mind in this discussion).
--Chovain 10:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This is why: This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.
The comments are indeed poorly sourced - they are not sourced at all in fact. As the comments are also outrageously racist, they are also potentially libellous material. It is supposed to be removed immediately according to Wikipedia policy.. --Commking 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Year format

Usually, it's AD, not ad. It needs to be capital. Moveover, CE is a better option since it's neutral. In anyway, you don't need to add AD behind every year because the context is very clear. See other biographical pages. __earth (Talk) 15:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No response? I'll change if there's no opposition. __earth (Talk) 07:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said that there is no response? '~'? Saudara Hafiz aka Earth, I do appreciate your consideration about that subject matter with your "helpful"-cum-good-faith edits over that Wiki-article but and however before should you tamper, alter, or even change anything particularly onto that "Garis Masa" thing, kindly please wait and be patient enough to allow myself to finish up the several last years of Mahathir's lifetime from the article's section of "Chronology". Only until then will I come here to discuss to you further on rationally, sensibly, and reasonably regarding of your views and opinions towards all of the year formats arising from that section right after or once I have done/completed with that Tun Mahathir's timeline-editing job. As for the time being, try not to do/interfere anything with that aforementioned section when the next time you arrive here again whilst I am currently trying out my best to carry on or continue with my unfinished/unaccomplished work on that stuff. Thank you. --onWheeZierPLot 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with __earth that the "ad" on each date is out of place. See WP:DATE for correct formatting of date years. "ad" can be useful when refering to various dates from both BC and AD, but AD is implied. The previous comment suggests that __earth 's edit prevented you from finishing the timeline editing. As it stands, this article uses a different year format to other similar articles. Is there some reason why "ad" is appropriate here? Alternatively, is there any reason why removal of the "ad" specifiers will affect your ongoing work? Chovain 01:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There was no response in more than a week. I waited long enough and moreover, Wikipedia is a collaborative work. At the same time, Wikipedia's policy clearly says there's no need for "ad". __earth (Talk) 12:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I propose that this article be divided into several smaller sections, since it is quite long an unwieldy. Possibly, we could move most of the foreign policy material into a new article, Foreign Policy of the Mahathir administration.

The political machine section, however, I feel is much more directly relevant to the legacy of the Mahathir administration, so I feel it is more important to keep that section in this article as is.

Also, I think that the chronology section should be removed, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is currently what that section is. Perhaps some of the content could be incorporated into the rest of the article. 129.170.202.3 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first two parts. Perhaps the more important aspects of the chronology can be incorporated into the article. I hope that anyone who wish to do that do not delete important aspects of the chronology. Wai Hong 06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If something's important enough to be in the chronology, the main article should have covered it as well, isn't it? Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Public belief

I removed the following statement

However, the public holds the opinion that education standards were better off during the British colonial era a shocking indictment for a modern, newly industrialised country and the man who made it possible

It was unsourced and as a Malaysian I don't believe it's an accurate assesement of the public belief either Nil Einne 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I, however, support that statement. I am a Malaysian but I do not support the degenerating education levels in Malaysia. The contents of secondary education are getting simpler. Mastery and fluency of speech in English is getting worse. In the tertiary level, Malaysia's participation in research is not enough. Wai Hong 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We have to remember that no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. All assertion must be backed up with proper citation when challenged, regardless of what we believe on the issue of improved/worsening/stagnant standard of the education system. __earth (Talk) 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. In any case, Wai Hong appears to have misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that I don't agree that the education standards were better off during the British colonial era. I don't want to discuss my views. I was saying that I don't believe the statement is accurate. The statement claimed the 'public holds the opinion'. I'm sure there are some people who believe the standards of education are getting worse but this doesn't mean the the entire public believes the standards of education are getting worse Nil Einne 12:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Suppressing Malaysia cultures interchange and development

Under Mahathir administration, there little cultural development compare to the economic progress. There is no significant literature writing/novel produce during Mahathir administration. Nor there is any form of cultural interchange between various race in Malaysia.

No many critics taking Mahathir from the angle of cultural development. More work must be done as this is the serious flaw of Mahathir, which is comparable with other political leader which suppress cultural development and lead to nation destruction.

--Sltan 12:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a strong reliable source, go ahead and add it. __earth (Talk) 12:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

Can we work towards getting rid of the POV tag on the article? What parts of the artictle are still considered POV? Chovain 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure.Wai Hong 16:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • My first impression after NOT reading the article is: a balanced article. I am contacting the editor for details. See: #NPOV dispute. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've removed the { { NPOV-section }} tag now.
    • I tried contacting HK but his/her talk page is protected.
    • I don't know whether the article is (N)POV, but if anyone feels the tag is required, please:
      1. specify the issues on this talk page
      2. link to that in the tag
      3. please choose an appropriate tag for either a single section or the entire article.
    • — Xiutwel (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have readded the {{POV}} tag, as well as an {{unreferenced}} tag. The 'Legacy' section is especially bad. - SpLoT // 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Will cite specifics in a while. - SpLoT // 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed {{fact}} tags at all locations needing some form of attribution. On another note, the article does not have specific references for specific points, which is why I did not indiscriminately use {{fact}} when I didn't doubt accuracy. Furthermore, the article at some parts goes out of point; for example, the bit about Anwar and PAS goes on and on without concentrating on Mahathir's role in the issue. Nearly an entire paragraph on the Anwar issue seems to have been copied from the Politics section to the United States Relations section. This same section describes the bilateral relations as both 'stormy' and 'strong'. The section on speculation is rather awkward as well. Lede is quite short too, but that can be done later on when (hopefully) this article gets to GA. The timeline is way too lengthy, and should be split. More pressingly, I have quoted each somewhat POV sentence to scrutinise here:

  1. It was Mahathir after all, who had groomed and placed him there as his deputy. This sounds very sympathetic towards Mahathir, as it makes Anwar sound unappreciative of Mahathir's efforts.
  2. Many observers also saw the engineering of Anwar's dismissal as the result of the triumph ... The use of the word 'engineering' makes the sentence sound as if Mahathir and all other parties have admitted that Anwar's sacking was set up. Did these 'observers' view it as such, or is it truly a set up?
  3. ... as Mahathir was only interested in their total loyalty. This can portray Mahathir as either foresaking the governance of Malaysia to achieve loyalty, or as a sensible man working to unite a party and/or a nation.
  4. After years of sending students abroad, Malaysian post-graduate and industrial research and development has still not shown any notable progress. Not needed criticism here; who is to decide if there has indeed been progress in education? Seems to express the author's views.
  5. These problems are usually small ones which crop up from personal matters, yet Mahathir always brings the Malaysian government into play ... Lack of specific examples, and a very categorical statement with 'usually' and 'always'. Very much like another unsourced criticism.
  6. The absurdity of the whole situation ... Again, who is to judge an issue as 'absurd'?
  7. Largely due to the economic development of the country, which by and large has benefited all races, Mahathir left behind a peaceful, prosperous, and self-confident Malaysia, for which he has been granted the soubriquet of Bapa Pemodenan (Father of Modernisation). Very shaky statement here, requiring either removal or plenty of sourcing.

Somehow, with this article, the many unsourced statements also lead to POV problems. - SpLoT // 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with all the criticisms, I have removed {{unreferenced}} because it is only meant for articles without 'any citations (there have been complaints about this misuse on the mailing list), which this article clearly has. Specific {{fact}} tags are preferred. Let's work to get this article back on track. Johnleemk | Talk 07:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Family section

we might need to add a section on his family. His children are quite well-known personalities in Malaysia. __earth (Talk) 15:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

merger: Galeria Sri Perdana

I propose to merge Galeria Sri Perdana into this article. Galeria Sri Perdana does not seem to be notable in itself, at least not by the current state of that article. Actually the relevant information in that article seems to be that Galeria Sri Perdana was the residence of Mahathir bin Mohamad. Thus I am proposing to merge the content into here. (In fact, if you support that, just go ahead and merge the articles.)

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the article into here, shortening it considerably. For reference, I include the original text of the Galeria Sri Perdana article below. --B. Wolterding 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Galeria Sri Perdana

The Galeria Sri Perdana was the official residence of the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from 23 August 1983 to 18 October 1999. During this period, it was known as Sri Perdana. In keeping with the principle of heritage conservation, the original design and layout of the Sri Perdana has been preserved and Galeria Sri Perdana symbolises the nation's indebtedness to the Tun for 22 years of his dedicated and selfless service to the nation. On display are the: Main Lounge where many important official and family gatherings took place. The decorative design on the walls reflects the artistic tradition of the local Malay woodcarving; Wood Carving Room where the Tun took part in his favourite pastime. The woodcarving machine and appliances, as well as examples of the Tun's own work are displayed here; Theatre where up to 32 people can now view a documentary depicting a typical day in the life of the Prime Minister; Reading Room where a collection of reading and reference materials are kept. The Tun used this room when writing many of his speeches; Green House an idea insired by the Tun himself. It houses a variety of plants under controlled temperatures.

Jalan Damansara Kuala Lumpur: Open Tues-Sun 10am-5pm; Fri 10am-noon and 3pm-5:30pm.

Ref: KL Welcome Guide April 2006 p32

Birthdate?

Could anyone please explain the two different birthdates cited -December 20 and July 10? Which is correct? Most sources on the Internet says December 20.
Swedish Wiki user:Belairroad [10] June 6 2007 15:18 (CET)

Kindly refer to Mahathir_bin_Mohamad#Chronology __earth (Talk) 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. But I would be most grateful if anyone can explain the matter more thoroughly. Can anyone perhaps supply a reference that shows that July 10 is the ACTUAL birthdate.
Swedish Wiki user:Belairroad [11] June 6 2007 21:47 (CET)

Timeline?

Is this really necessary? I don't see many other political biographies with a timeline, and it takes up a whopping third of the article length on my screen. It also serves as somewhat of an excuse for shoddy writing, since people stick relevant information (e.g. his children, family, etc.) into the timeline instead of the article body. Johnleemk | Talk 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one wondering about this. It's very strange coming to the end of the article, and then finding the timeline. My immediate thought was, "perhaps this section should be moved to its own page." And sure enough, there's a box at the top of the page which says, "This page is 90 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article... "
I also think Johnleemk is most likely correct to suggest that the timeline section is probably acting as a magnet for bits and pieces of info that ought to be worked into the article -- much like having a trivia section. Cgingold 08:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cronyism allegations

Despite months to do so, no source was provided on the cronyism allegations. Wikipedia is not the place for opinion or baseless accusations. Graham Wellington 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which ones the article was referring to, but they are basically as commonly known in Malaysia as the fact that the earth goes around the sun. Consider that it is not that easy to find articles on Malaysian scandals going back one or two decades, when Mahathir was at his peak and allegations of cronyism in his administration were prevalent, unless you are particularly knowledgeable. Johnleemk | Talk 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

I don't think this is a good idea. Criticism sections are an easy way out of integrating the criticism into the article, and become a slipshod way of accumulating libel and other allegations in one lumped-up section. As it stands, the entire section really could go into the economic policy section. Criticism that is relevant to a particular section should go in there, and not be lumped into a general criticism section. I have rarely seen such sections which read well, particularly in political articles. Johnleemk | Talk 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I support integrating this section into other relevant parts of the article. kawaputratorque 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done so, and removed the timeline section as discussed earlier. I think we need to rethink the article's organisation before proceeding further - what makes most sense? The article's organisation has been developed haphazardly over time, which is to be expected since this is a wiki, but for it to be organised, we need to actively think about the organisation now. Otherwise the bad organisation will hamper our writing efforts, and we might actually work at cross-purposes if we each have different ideas about how the article should be structured. Johnleemk | Talk 07:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes i think we should. We could discuss a having a new section arrangement. Hopefully the simplest form as possible. Something like:
1) Early life
2) Entry into politic
3) Prime Ministership (includes foreign relations, controversies, etc)
4) Retirement
5) Health
6) etc
Also i think the timeline section could be recycled and integrated into other sections, if u think its useful. Unless some1 has those infos ready at hand kawaputratorque 08:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The timeline can be accessed here if anyone still needs it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "thestar 2" :
    • {{cite news|date=[[2006-10-24]]|url=http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/24/nation/20061024012835&sec=nation|title= Transcript of Tun Mahathir's press conference|publisher=[[The Star (Malaysia)]]}}
    • {{cite news|date=[[2006-10-24|url=http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/24/nation/20061024012835&sec=nation|title=Transcript of Tun Mahathir's press conference|publisher=[[The Star (Malaysia)]]}}
    • {{cite news|date=[[2006-10-24]]|url=http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/24/nation/20061024012835&sec=nation|title=Transcript of Tun Mahathir's press conference|publisher=[[The Star (Malaysia)]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The subject is taboo

"No mention of Mahathir's Indian Muslim background ever appears in the media. The subject is taboo," says Prospect Magazine. So now that the air is clear as to why it is so difficult to get information on Mahathir's background, I suggest we end the debate here. Say some more and we may well become the guest of the Malaysian government later tonight, LOL. — PM Poon (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this Philip Bowring character - and why does he so want people to believe Dr. M had an Indian father? Both sources that claim Dr. M's father of being born in India are from him. One is his blog (quoted above) and the other the prospect magazine link above where he is the author. 60.54.34.181 (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Philip Bowring was a longtime editor and reporter for the dear, departed Far Eastern Economic Review. Spent his entire adult life reporting on Asia. Not sure where he gets his info about this or whether it's true, but since you asked.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Since it wasn't sourced, and it appears we don't even know his ancestry, I changed the pseudo-Arabic pronunciation of his name to something more Malay. If it's a mistake, please restore--preferably with a source there or an explanation here. kwami (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (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) 20:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/21/nation/21617618&sec=nation. and other sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Mahathir bin Mohamad → Mahathir Mohamad — per WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming English usage is to drop the "bin", which most Malays drop in everyday usage as well. For example, there are 8750 google book hits with "bin", but 34,500 without it. News sources have an even starker difference: 791 with, 27,800 without. See for example the BBC profile.[12] WP:COMMONNAME implores us to follow these English language sources. Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Userspace draft

I just want to let anyone who is interested in this article know that over the next few weeks/months I'm planning to on some improvements to it in my userpsace (here). I think everyone can agree this article isn't up to scratch and I think it needs a focused wholesale effort to improve it. I'd be very grateful for input, help, comments, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata's edit

Mkativerata, you have deleted multiple edits by various people (deleting views of pluralisms) and changed it to a singularity of your own view, though perhaps you never have close encounter with the subject and never comprehend him.Huayi (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

9/11 Was Staged Remarks.

Dr. Mahathir has recently caused a stir by acknowledging that there is strong evidence that 9/11 was staged: http://911blogger.com/node/22428

The article should be updated to include this information (with an NPOV on the subject as to whether 9/11 was in fact staged or not).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.186.64 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 January 2010

Got a reliable source? A biography needs careful verification. . . dave souza, talk 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mahathir is a CIA agent. Mahathir is a Bilderberg member too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.120.185.171 (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

.. and you're a troll! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.92.123 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

His date of birth

The official d.o.b. is 20 Dec 1925. In his recently published book, A Doctor in the House: The memoirs on Tun Dr Mahathir, Mahathir stated that his real d.o.b. is 10 July 1925, but his father put 20 December on the birth certificate in order to simplify age calculation for entry into school. It was common to have two birth dates at that time. 203.82.94.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Yes, that's right and it's consistent with Barry Wain's independent biography. On wikipedia "date of birth" means real date of birth (ie the day a person was born), not official date of birth. Note number 1 at the bottom of the article explains the discrepancy so that readers are aware of both "dates of birth". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

His ancestry

Why so much fuss about it? Just because he has some Indian Muslim ancestry doesn't make him a Mamak. What most people seem to forget is that his ancestry is 75% Malay and 25% Indian. He's through and through a Malay with regard to language, culture, upbringing, values etc. Yet when I browse through the Opposition's blogs, they hype his Indian ancestry as if everything about him is Indian. Why do they do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.207.47 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

GOOD FAITH PROTECTOR

Someone with good faith should always protect this Article. At the height of Malaysian political heat (since the general election is coming very soon), a lot of bad-minded persons would love to vandalize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.98.172 (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2013

A very nitpicky request, but could the large template on the top of the page be reduced to the small silver lock? It's a highly visited page (especially heading into a general election) and it would be a pity to have an article in quite reasonable shape obscured by a large template that readers don't need to see. Cheers.--Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done by adding |small=yes --Redrose64 (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

The article should not be a member of Category:Malaysian physicists since its subject is a physician, not a physicist. — HHHIPPO 11:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request:

For the Foreign Relations -> Singapore section, can the following be added? Feel free to shorten.

  • Fully suspended the trading of CLOB (Central Limit Order Book) counters, during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis indefinitely freezing approximately US$4.47 billion worth of shares and affecting 172,000 investors, most of them Singaporeans.[1][2][3]

Zhanzhao (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "INVESTMENT IN MALAYSIA". Asia Times. Retrieved 10 December 2012.
  2. ^ "INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; Malaysia Extends Deadline in Singapore Exchange Dispute". New York Times. Retrieved 10 December 2012.
  3. ^ "Malaysia's stockmarket; Daylight Robbery". The Economist. Retrieved 10 December 2012.

Edit Request:

Foreign relations section...

Currently reads:

[...] During Mahathir's term, Malaysia's relationship with the West was generally fine despite his being known as an outspoken critic towards it.[77] Early during his tenure, a small disagreement with the United Kingdom over university tuition fees sparked a boycott of all British goods led by Mahathir, in what became known as the "Buy British Last" campaign. It also led to a search for development models in Asia, most notably Japan. This was the beginning of his famous "Look East Policy".[78] Although the dispute was later resolved by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Mahathir continued to emphasize Asian development models over contemporary Western ones... he particularly criticized the double standards of Western nations[79]

Suggest addition at the end.

In 2013, Mahathir was invited to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Decisions about who to invite were made by her family in consultation with the British Government.[1]

Reason:

I think it is a minor point, but shows that the working relationship between Mahathir and the British Premiere remained positive / respectful even after their retirements. If this article were not protected, I would just ahve added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.163.57 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22109759

Edit request on 20 August 2013

Please remove "Dr." from the lead sentence in accordance with WP:Credential. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, thank you. I also unprotected the article, but please post to Requests for Page Protection if the problems come back. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

The article is tagged for neutrality dispute, but there does not seem to be an active discussion on the talk page. Should the tag be removed? Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That tag was (badly) added by User:Huayi on 17 January 2014; that user hasn't edited at all since then. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking over the article, I don't see any obvious problems, so I removed the tag. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mahathir Mohamad. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahathir Mohamad. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Mahathir's father and Tunku Abdul Rahman

Hi all,

I'm reading "Tunku: An Odyssey of a Life Well-Lived and Well-Loved" by Kobkua Suwannathat Pian (2017), where it is mentioned (pg 4) that the headmaster of Tunku's English medium school was one Mohamad Iskandar, father of Mahathir. It's an interesting factoid, but I wasn't sure how to slot it in in the "Childhood and medical career" section, since the part pertaining to Dr M's parentage seems to be making the point that he was the only PM not with a politically connected background.

Would be cool if this made it into the article somehow, it's an interesting bit of trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.153.34 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mahathir Mohamad. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mahathir Mohamad. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia election 2018

Dr Mahathir just won the elections a second time and will be sworn today or tomorrow so what are plans for adding this info? Ihavealovelycat (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Ihavealovelycat (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


Najib is still the PM, he was defeated but is still the PM. Mahathir will not be sworn in until 5 pm Malaysian time.
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/05/10/dr-m-expects-to-be-sworn-in-as-pm-by-5pm-today/
Another says that the King will not do the swearing in today.
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/2018/05/10/palace-confirms-mahathir-won%E2%80%99t-be-sworn-today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.208 (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Mahathir is not the 7th Prime Minister

When a prime minister is re-appointed after an absence from office, he or she retains the position number of their first appointment. This convention may be seen in the following articles:

There are many other such examples. Thus, Mahathir will always retain his position as the 4th PM. If, as mooted, Anwar succeeds Mahathir, then Anwar will be the 7th PM. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry But As For Me. I Find All Article says Mahathir is Now 7th PM. Under Election System. Go to Wikipedia BM About Tun M. He is Still 7th PM. 124.82.26.166 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
WWGB Hello ?124.82.26.166 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


I thought so too, but Mohamad has widely been reported as the "7th prime minister". https://www.google.com/search?q=%227th+Prime+Minister%22+%22mahathir+mohamad%22 His official Twitter describes him as the 7th prime minister. https://twitter.com/chedetofficial Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • We cannot use what other countries do to decide how Malaysia numbers its PMs. The USA renumbers its presidents who return after a break: Grover Cleveland is considered both the 22nd and 24th president. But Kevin Rudd is the 26th Australian PM, only, despite having a break in his service. We have to use whatever system the Malaysians use for their prime ministers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank You Mr.Jack, I Really Appriciated That.124.82.28.59 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating a Separate Timeline Article ?

Given that a timeline of his first 100 days in office has been deleted, perhaps it might be wise to create a timeline of his whole term in office in a separate article? Zubin12 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The question is, who endorsed the deletion? If somebody wanted to delete the whole "hardwork" of other authors, it should be discussed in here unless if the statements contained inappropriate things that deserves to be deleted. I will undo that "IP user" action and if anybody want to delete it (Timeline of Mahathir's first 100 Days Premiership), please discuss here. if majority agrees to delete it, than YES or else, let it be - Jay (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Addition to my post above. The whole section is being deleted by an IP user who only accessed 2 sites by removing contents. I take that as "Vandalism" than constructive contribution. I have reinstated Timeline of Mahathir's first 100 Days Premiership. And if anybody thinks it should be deleted or move to its own article, please discuss and get consensus. This is what Wikipedia is all about! --Jay (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahathir_Mohamad/Archive_2&oldid=1190124645"