![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Opening section: In reference to revisions by (@ Babymissfortune:) and (@ TheGracefulSlick:) I would really like to discuss your views on the reference to the subject being one of the key figures identified in the 1MDB sovereign wealth fund scandal. I can't understand what the problem is: this is factually correct and neutral, referenced by a CNN story and the main reason this guy is notable - it should be in the first section. •From the CNN article: "The lawsuit names at least three top players." He is one of them. The lawsuit is being taken by the U.S. government. •Google his name - 6/10 results on page 1 refer to the 1MDB scandal meaning this is more notable than anything else he has done. •Refer to here: /info/en/?search=1Malaysia_Development_Berhad_scandal - he is mentioned four times. •The description "one of the leading Hollywood producers" is not supported by a citation - the citation refers to the 1MDB scandal! But you keep reverting to this edit. Happy to discuss
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.193.122 ( talk) 11:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
News story allegation can be considered part of wikipedia and is what we called controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVCfiredauz ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View says ' do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process'
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality
If you feel there is bias,just rewrite it to achieve neutral tone,no need to remove it as wikipedia policy says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVCfiredauz ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I also want to stress out that although my reference list direct it to Malaysian Chronicle,the part I actually quoted come from Hollywood insiders(without a doubt trustworthy source) who speak to Sarawak Report which offer explanation on why Riza Aziz got drop out of the Oscar nominee.
Can you tell me which part Biographies of Living Person I violate.Be specific. Non of the source I use are blog.They are legitimate including interview with Hollywood.Anyway,I choose to remove it for now.
I have removed the Controversy section. Is was a significant BLP violation in both content and presentation. The use of Wikipedia's voice to make highly contentious assertions was particularly unacceptable. This is an adminstrative action per this arbitration remedy. The material should not be restored in its previous state but a balanced and rigourously sourced presentation of some of the material may be appropriate at the discretion of a consensus of editors. CIreland ( talk) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Opening section: In reference to revisions by (@ Babymissfortune:) and (@ TheGracefulSlick:) I would really like to discuss your views on the reference to the subject being one of the key figures identified in the 1MDB sovereign wealth fund scandal. I can't understand what the problem is: this is factually correct and neutral, referenced by a CNN story and the main reason this guy is notable - it should be in the first section. •From the CNN article: "The lawsuit names at least three top players." He is one of them. The lawsuit is being taken by the U.S. government. •Google his name - 6/10 results on page 1 refer to the 1MDB scandal meaning this is more notable than anything else he has done. •Refer to here: /info/en/?search=1Malaysia_Development_Berhad_scandal - he is mentioned four times. •The description "one of the leading Hollywood producers" is not supported by a citation - the citation refers to the 1MDB scandal! But you keep reverting to this edit. Happy to discuss
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.193.122 ( talk) 11:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
News story allegation can be considered part of wikipedia and is what we called controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVCfiredauz ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View says ' do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process'
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality
If you feel there is bias,just rewrite it to achieve neutral tone,no need to remove it as wikipedia policy says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVCfiredauz ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I also want to stress out that although my reference list direct it to Malaysian Chronicle,the part I actually quoted come from Hollywood insiders(without a doubt trustworthy source) who speak to Sarawak Report which offer explanation on why Riza Aziz got drop out of the Oscar nominee.
Can you tell me which part Biographies of Living Person I violate.Be specific. Non of the source I use are blog.They are legitimate including interview with Hollywood.Anyway,I choose to remove it for now.
I have removed the Controversy section. Is was a significant BLP violation in both content and presentation. The use of Wikipedia's voice to make highly contentious assertions was particularly unacceptable. This is an adminstrative action per this arbitration remedy. The material should not be restored in its previous state but a balanced and rigourously sourced presentation of some of the material may be appropriate at the discretion of a consensus of editors. CIreland ( talk) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)