Talk:Mahathir Mohamad/Archive 3

Corruption Accusations against Mahathir
Having read the Wikipage many times now, I have been irked by the fact that the many corruption accusations leveled against Mahathir are not at all mentioned even in a single sentence. I do not believe that it is news that Mahathir has been accused many times by both foreign and local politicians, media and etc. of corruption throughout his 22-year stint as Prime Minister, even by his to-be-successor, Anwar Ibrahim when the two were at each other's throats. I therefore believe that it is an important piece of information that should be mentioned in the Wikipage, even if it's in just a single sentence, though I believe that there should be a section about them. Sisuvia (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are three levels of corruption-related allegations against Mahathir in his 1981-2003 premiership. The first is that he was personally corrupt. No-one seriously thinks that, and Barry Wain in his biography all but dismisses it.  The second is that family members and associates benefited financially from Mahathir's position. Wain discusses this over the course of a page or two and I agree it warrants mention. The third is that Mahathir, even if not personally corrupt, did not do enough to combat corruption within his administration. Again this warrants a mention. I don't agree that there should be a separate section. This article has been damaged enough as it is by idiots putting in separate sections about paralympic controversies and Khashoggi and the like. Thankfully the article's section on the 1981-2003 period is still in good shape: it has remained in its chronological structure. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply because one biography written by one person dismisses a corruption allegation does not mean that they are automatically untrue. I would refrain from using phrases such as "No-one seriously thinks that" in regards to anything at all because neither you nor anyone else really knows that to be absolute, and I can tell you right now I know multiple people who believe that Mahathir was very much corrupt during his 22-year premiership. I concur that Mahathir's comments about Khashoggi are, for lack of a better word, irrelevant, but the paralympic controversy was a pretty big event that should definitely be mentioned and warrants its subsection. Sisuvia (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The bloke has been prime minister twice over a period of almost 24 years and an active politician for over 50 years. A diplomatic flare-up over a paralymic event does not warrant a separate subsection. If anything, it should be mentioned briefly in a broader discussion, which we don't yet have, about Malaysian foreign affairs under Mahathir, as evidence of his pro-Palestinian internationalism. At the moment it is gross recentism: someone has read the news and dropped it into the article without any regard for its almost non-existent significance in a major political biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Interim
I think Interim period should be shown. said that the same was applied to Theresa May and other prime ministers; but I would like to point out that Theresa May only resigned as party leader in June and that she offered her resignation to HM in July, so it is not quite an analogy that can be drawn. As regards country leaders, acting period was indicated on Vladimir Putin. Most importantly, the Malay King did appoint Mahathir as Interim Prime Minister when he resigned as Prime Minister. NYKTNE (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By accepting the interim appointment, Mahathir delayed his resignation and hence his term extends to 1 March. WWGB (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not the case. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong accepted his resignation, thereby ending his term, and only after that was Mahathir appointed as interim Prime Minister. It was not one continuous term. Sisuvia (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What said was what I understood, could you find any source to support your view? NYKTNE (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the French
There seems to be a recent back and forth on whether to include this. I did a google search and it seems those remarks are not widely reported in newspapers making this whole incident possibly WP:UNDUE. It certainly doesn't deserve a section on its own.VR talk 15:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * its not WP:UNDUE, his tweets are only hours old and they are fast gaining coverage see here. For a noted head of state to openly support violence online is highly unusual and deserves to be mentioned. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * stop reverting people's adding of content with out discussing, or at the very least without leaving an edit summary. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BRD and WP:BLP the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wants to include this recent content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN primarily refers to proving citations and backing up the information in the material added. The fact that Mahathir Mohamad made these tweets is not being disputed by anyone, if you doubt me just go to his twitter. Every time some one added content referring to this incident on the article citations were provided. Is there any reason why his tweets surrounding this incident should not be included in the article, when his views on other issues such as the United States and antiemetism are? Even other politicians are weighting in on this issue now, (see here) so this clearly is not a BLP violation or undue weight. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then please discuss here and gain consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am trying to do, but it doesn't not seem that anyone is willing to discuss it right now. I pinged the two editors who objected to this content but so far neither has responded. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can be patient and wait for them to respond, there is no rush. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The content added had several issues. One was that it seemed to not even have quoted Mahathir properly. If you're going to use a tweet of him, at least quote it in full. Secondly, it doesn't deserve a section of its own. It can be possibly integrated into a section on "controversial statements". It certain doesn't belong in the lead and was right to remove it from there. That's a gross WP:BLP violation.VR talk 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not the one who added the content in the lead. Mahathir Mohamad clearly tweeted that that Muslims "have right to punish" and “have the right to kill millions of French people". 1 2 3. This is can not be disputed, because it came out of Mahathir Mohamad's own twitter account, so I am not sure what you are saying of not quoting him properly. For the record I am referring to my edit, not the edit in the lead section. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not considering the whole statement, which is actually in the very source you quoted. He said "Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past. But by and large the Muslims have not applied the ‘eye for an eye’ law. Muslims don’t." So he's saying that while Muslims could avenge French massacres by killing French people, Muslims do not do so. Further, he said that the Murder of Samuel Paty was " not in keeping with the teachings of Islam". You never quoted Mahathir in full, which changes the context of his remarks.VR talk 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Those were separate tweets, the full 12th tweet he put out clearly says "Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past." 1 He also called the French president "uncivilized" which you conveniently left out. I also never said that Islam advocates the killing of civilians, I was just quoting what he wrote directly. You can argue what "intentions" he had all day, but what he said is clear. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This account may not have said "Islam advocates the killing of civilians", but an IP below has gone around throwing the term "black-hearted Muslim". -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if the other user insulted you or other editors, but I never personally added any thing that said that Muslims support killings people or even that Muslims support Mahathir's tweet. The IP reverted on of my edits, I have nothing to do with him/her. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not need to apologise for what someone else has said. I am just showing how quickly people mix can their on views with what the sources are saying. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * His tweets contradict each other for sure, but just because he tweeted something uncontroversial does not negate what he previously tweeted. This argument of "taking [tweets/statements] out of context" is the same argument Donald Trump's supporters often use in defending his controversial tweets. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Twitter places limits on the size of a tweet so it is commonly for people to break a single tweet into multiple tweets. All his tweets followed each other in sequence and were part of one big rant. Reliable sources are treating it as one big rant and quoting everything together.VR talk 17:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That still does not negate what Mahathir Mohamad said was controversial and that it has garnered a strong response. If and when the content about his tweet is re-added to the article and you feel that his other tweets should be mentioned too, than go ahead. None of this takes away from the fact that Mahathir said that he literally said that "Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past." Again I am not saying that Mahathir thinks killing people is alright, or that Muslims or Malaysians as a group even agree with what he said, I'm just saying that's what he's tweeted, and because of it and the coverage it has received I think it should be included in the content of the article, that's all. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This man literally made the most Hitler-like public comment of recent decades and you're all discussing whether it should be mentioned in his fancy Wikipedia page full of his awards and recognitions. Shame! - 87.126.21.102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.21.102 (talk)
 * Guessing you have not heard about Jeremy Corbyn being suspended from the Labour Party today then. Also we are an encyclopedia not a list of comments, but you can got to WikiQuote as that is a thing too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, when did Jeremy Corbyn advocate for the murder of millions of Israelis?! And how are the political views of a major politicians not relevant? Especially on a topic that's more important than any other policy? As if this page doesn't already contain his comments and quotes. But I guess you see no problem with wanting millions of innocent French slaughtered, Emir. What a surprise... Have your Wikipedia page, it's your domain. I guess I met another black-hearted Muslim today and I wasn't even looking for you. I'm sure you would have had the same reaction if Francois Hollande or George Bush had said Europeans had the right to murder every Iranian. Unbelievable  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.21.102 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:CIVIL. Please comment on the content, not the editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sila baca keseluruhan apa yang ditulis oleh Mahathir dalam hantaran beliau mengenai isu penghinaan Islam di Perancis. Jangan hanya baca satu perenggan/ayat sahaja lalu membuat kesimpulan bahawa Mahathir cuba mengajak umat Islam untuk bunuh rakyat Perancis yang menghina Islam. Amir Noor Muhammad (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please speak English if you can. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This what google translate gave me:
 * VR talk 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * VR talk 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this section continues to be removed is absurd, any other high status world leader, former or current calling for the open and justified killing of an entire nation is certainly notable enough. The section should be added and left for the world to read. Beaten Corpse (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is really problematic is to quote one side but not the other. Mahathir said many things in that post and they have been quoted by reliable sources. For example, he said "The killing is not an act that as a Muslim I would approve" in regards to the murder of Samuel Paty and this was picked up by newspapers.VR talk 23:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. If we do decide to include this, then we should not cherry pick quotes but provide what is reported by the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the context of those remarks:
 * All of those sentences have been included in reliable sources, though some reliable sources include some of those sentences but not the other. The order can be determined from twitter. This does not include some other tweets of his that condemn the murder of Paty (and also reported in reliable sources).VR talk 23:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's very clear that extra "context" and completely irrelevant quotes are only being thrown in to dilute the quote we actually care about. In any other controversial section, the controversial statements are always clearly highlighted, then apologies/later context are added after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaten Corpse (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The quotes are not "irrelevant", they provide context and have been presented in reliable sources. WP:NPOV requires us to present all sides.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it very clear? It not fitting the narrative you cherry-picked quotes to make is a completely different matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Birth name: Mahathir bin Mohamad or Mahathir a/l Iskandar Kutty?
I'm a little bit confused. Is there any concrete proof that Mahathir's real name is Mahathir a/l Iskandar Kutty? Thanks. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * no, it doesn't look like it. The only source is Zahid and Mahathir's daughter Marina disputed this here. I wouldn't take Zahid at his word as a strong source. I'm going to remove this. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of his life
I can't see the reason why there's a timeline infobox of Mohamad's life. It's too long and other PM's don't have one nor do most wikipedia articles. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I think there should probably be a Mahathir Mohamad sidebar. His career is long enough to justify this. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article?
How do other editors feel about nominating this as a good article? I've made an effort to improve the more recent sections of Mahathir's career and his second premiership, which previously had WP:UNDUE weight to controversies. Any thoughts or objections? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This article seriously downplays Mahathir's antisemitism. It also appears to present as reasonable his argument that Jewish behavior merits his bigotry.  For one thing, his 2003 comments were nearly a direct quotation from the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- which have been debunked in numerous court cases and by all respectable scholars.  He used his stature to give the document new credibility.  The man has been obsessed with the Jews and he stands as one of great bigots of recent times.   I'm not a Wikipedia contributor but for this reason -- among others -- the article should not be designated as good.  See Kressel, "The Sons of Pigs and Apes": Muslim Antisemitism and the Conspiracy of Silence. Washington, DC: Potomac Books and University of Nebraska Press, 2012, for source material. 149.151.179.60 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I wouldn't go as far as to say it "downplays" his antisemistism (there is a clear section that outlines this and responses to his views) if you or other editors were interested in expanding on this section with other sources, that would be very welcome. On Wikipedia, just important to be aware of a key policy of no original research, so all views have to exactly correspond with those in reliable sources, and we also need to adhere to biography of living persons policy, especially important to keep in mind for controversial topics like Mahathir's antisemitism. Having said that, wouldn't be against expansion or changes to the section. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The Foreign relations subsections for both terms mix up his government foreign policy actions with his personal relationships/reputation. I don't have a solution at hand, but perhaps merging the personal/reputation into the Controversies section and finding a new title for it. Glancing at a view politician articles I don't see anything standard. I do also think that overall, this article is more a chronological history of Mahathir rather than an article about Mahathir, so to speak, but that may be more an FA consideration than a GA one. The length is good, the sources appear good at a quick glance. Regarding the antisemitism comment above, I don't see how the current wording presents the quotes as reasonable. The parts of book mentioned accessible here don't say the speech was from the Protocls, instead saying the arguments were similar. "The belief...persists even among many who do not cite The Protocols itself", and later the speech is described as "Protocols-style Jew hatred". CMD (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks I agree with your points. I think a general standard for political leader articles is to have sections following a roughly chronological series (e.g. Early life, political career, premiership etc.) and then sections on "political positions/ideology", "public image" and "personal life". However, I don't think the current structure is a major issue for consideration as a GA. Only slight qualm is that "controversies" sections are generally discouraged, but I can't think of a different way to structure it. On antisemitism comment, thanks for checking the source; think would be fine to mention that book drew parallels to the protocols if inclusion was desired.  Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022
add to the profile’s information (changes are capitalised): specifically,

“preceded by — HUSSEIN ONN / Najib Razak” “succeeded by — ABDULLAH BADAWI / Muhyiddin Yassin” 60.54.23.39 (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A09090091 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)