Talk:UMNO

Anti Icerd, Sheraton Move and other controversies

So i would like to ask everyone here is participating in Anti ICERD and Sheraton considered as a controversies because apparently there is one contributor that claims that it is not controversial.Francabicon (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Francabicon could you provide explanation on why do you think that anti ICERD rallies as controversial? SunDawntalk 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn well ICERD was a good factor that prevent racism and according to researchers that they had no affect on bumiputera rights but despite the government action not implementing it they still launch a big protest. As for the sheraton move well they are seen part of the it which leads to the political instability. Francabicon (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi i would like to address something that is that francabicon2 is impersonating me and also what i wrote is valid facts and it consist of other contributors work too.Francabicon (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fresh discussion

@Francabicon I like to do a fresh start on the controversies sections and my point of view.

To summarise quickly first, I do think some of these are better merged as part of history while the rest does not involve UMNO as much. Do note that UMNO is a large political parties, individual actions by a small portion not acting on behalf or in UMNO official status, does not contribute to as UMNO actions or stand. The actions of whichever Malaysia governments in power, regardless who is in power, should be noted in their individual government terms articles instead of UMNO article here.

• 1MDB - Y If you look at the article itself, the main actors are Jhow Low and Najib. There are several lawsuits by UMNO members against Najib, etc, there are UMNO members being dismissed etc. It's generally quite messy but its worth a quick mention. A better summary of UMNO involvement will be better so I would say we can keep it.

• Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - N I have included in this diff as part of UMNO's history. It can be slightly expanded there but it should not exist in a standalone controversy. Apparently they already have the approval from RoS Malaysia to extend the 5 year period to 6 years, unless there is more significant issues regarding the elections.

• Keris Incident - ? I am half divided on this, it has an impact on UMNO but ultimately this is an incident by Hishammuddin Hussein himself. I am leaning to not keeping it in UMNO article here. If there is an insistence to keep it somewhere, to merge into UMNO history and probably the general elections article as one of the factor or post elections analysis.

• anti-ICERD rally - N The main article only mentioned that it jointly held the rally/protest and that's all. Political parties join/hold rallies/protests all the time. Is there any significance to UMNO or by UMNO? While the rally/protest is significant, UMNO is simply upholding its manifesto and policies. This should really just be in the history that they held a rally against ICERD.

• Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - N This should really be just in the 12MP wikipedia article which I copied over earlier. This is simply just another policy in line with with its manifesto and policies.

• 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - N This is not a controversy but a full-fledged crisis which rightfully has it own article. UMNO's participation is only at the high level, with only its key members. It should be just in the history section with link to the article similar to Challenge to UMNO's right to exist.

I like to note again that while each event are notable, it does not mean every event should be placed into the controversy section. It means every single event in UMNO's History would be categorised in a way or another. While WP:CSECTION is an essay, I find it is quite a good guide. From wikipedia's article Controversy, Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view, some of the events are more of criticism rather than controversies. Some are not sustained in nature and generally a lot are not adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In short, in my opinion, perhaps only the 1MDB scandal should be included, while the rest are written away in history or removed. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your respond, now what i'm saying is based on me and a few of the editors understanding so please don't misinterpret my word for another meaning or misunderstand what I'm saying. now as far as we are concern this is a few statement that we have provided repetitively to others within the community. :

• 1MDB - Y since you had agree upon it then i won't state further
• Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - ? this isn't written by me so i might not have the right to comment but from my basic understanding that this is a controversy at the highest level as this is umno directly challenging the federal institution of Malaysia basically it cannot be more controversial itself. As I felt that this is a work that is provided by other contributors and it has been there for quite sometime basically mostly everyone agree that it should be place there.
• Keris Incident - ? this isn't written by me so but i do think this is a bit controversial as well this is basically racism at the point of it as various BN allied parties have publicly criticize umno for performing such actions.
• anti-ICERD rally - Y This is held by nearly all umno higher ups with party members seen with them too. So this is umno basically participating part of it also it isn't personal rally too as it is part of their manifesto and policies. It is part of their history and controversies as ICERD is based on racial equality where they are totally against.
• Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - Y this is drafted mostly by umno members part of their manifesto and previous attempt by najib government basically it is attacking minority.
• 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - Y this a full-fledged crisis which rightfully has it own article which i've linked. Key members are party representatives also you cannot stuff over 3 million members into one small meeting room for it to consider as umno action. yes it should be history and also controversy as they are going against the people's will.

Now i would also like to note again that I'm not publicly attacking you as i would take this as a discussion or debate.So i hope that we can get on good terms to discuss like civilize people and without using derogatory words to get to an agreement. Also work like this is made by other fellow contributors so don't think that removing large chucks of useful data will do any good for future editors who wish to edit over here as their hard work is all wipe by a particular users by instating that it is invalid. Hope to hear your respond and Thank You. Francabicon (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Francabicon Please do tag me in replies so I get a notification about it. I am going through all the incidents so we do not have to go back and forth partially on items and then all the past items being dragged out again.

  • Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - You failed to provide any rationale except that it is controversial and that other people has written it for a long time and therefore acceptable. Wikipedia does not works in either way. You have to prove why it is controversial which you failed. Yes, there is a court case at the highest level but was rejected hence not notable unless there is more follow up actions. Nobody had further challenged RoS or UMNO at any levels which will fail sustained and significant coverage. Also, even it had existed for a while, it does not mean it is automatically accepted. All content are technically subjected to discussion and can be WP:BRD.
  • Keris incident - Same as above. As again, this is an action by an individual, not UMNO, unless it is UMNO sanctioned and approved and he is acting on behalf of UMNO then yes, it is UMNO. Again, it has been there for a while does not means it is accepted.
  • anti-ICERD rally - On this line of argument, which you should have brought out much earlier in previous discussion, I am able to accept it but not in a controversy section. I would suggest putting it in the Ideology section instead per your argument of part of their manifesto and policies and ICERD is based on racial equality where they are totally against. Since it is their ideology, it is better to be there and with some criticism (if appropriate) that it is considered racism etc (will need reliable sourcing on the criticism part).
  • Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - hence I placed the full section over to Twelfth Malaysia Plan article as the masterplan is by the ruling government not UMNO. Even if the government is 100% UMNO, the plan is by the government, not UMNO (UMNO has politicians who are not part of the government). It's a similar concept to PAP of Singapore.
  • 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - Similarly with the above point. The crisis is caused by UMNO's top politicians, which are inside a room. Did all 3million UMNO members triggered the crisis and they are representative of UMNO in this crisis or just the top politicians causing the crisis? It is part of the history and hence it should be noted somewhere in their history and not an exceptional section.

  Also, I hope you understand that controversy sections are best avoided as it is rather disjointed and serves only to highlight certain incidents (unless they are the mostly the main reasons why the article exists). UMNO has a long history and while there are many incidents along the history, the controversy section is rather Wikipedia:Recentism and only serves to emphasize such incidents. I hope you put down your political positions and viewed this neutrally. If you cannot do so, I would strongly suggest that you should leave the topic alone. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• • User Francabicon can't accept the truth because he/she is a PH suppoter. Yet can't admit the truth. His's Complaints about these other 4 issue except 1mdb really messed up. ICERD rally is not a Controversy but He/she wrote it under Fake newskini is Exactly how they lied. And Francabicon and Leesjy still same manner and yeah, they actually Pure Sock Puppets. It is better to block Francabicon because he keep denial his "Facts" are right, Regards.LeesjyM3 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

    @LeesjyM3 how does being a potential hydrogen (pH) supporter related to this matter or politics and there is no news site call (Fake newskini). I would like to warn you that publicly accusation of impersonation is a very very serious matter hope that you can consider carefully before writing any manner. if i may say that you have all right to say that I'm wrong but it won't resolve any matter that you can't prove why it is wrong please act speak like the commenters above and giving me real facts and evidence. My sources are adheres to independent source without political funding or other opposition from the current party. Francabicon (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

    @LeesjyM3 and @Francabicon: I like to warn both of you to be WP:CIVIL on Wikipedia. Regardless of your political positions, Wikipedia is not a battleground for supporters to fight or gain support for your political inclinations. Francabicon, your sarcasm here does not help in anyway and only serves to make things worse. If other editors chose not to be civil, ignore and move on. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

    @Justanothersgwikieditor i actually have zero clue on what is @LeesjyM3 is talking about because i don't start any fight for any political motivation and I'm not being sarcastic when he said about being a "PH" supporter because i literally have zero clue on what is he talking about because PH through my understanding is pH. I've literally google "fake newskini" as i do not know of any news site called that name. when i say that i push used actual news source from sites. Francabicon (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

    @Francabicon : This is rather disingenuous on your part and that while I come here to discuss in good faith without looking at your edit history, your choice of defence has left me with no other choices.

    • To write on UMNO and Malaysia's political crisis and claiming that you do not know what PH stands for and claims it is pH is rather a poor move. Especially considering your own user profile indicating you are a Malaysian and listed your political leanings, it's rather hard to believe that you do not know the political coalition that ruled your country. Also you had been editing various constituency articles which has PH contesting the ward and its rather not possible for you not to notice PH is on these pages.
    • You had used Malaysiakini as sources/references in your original writings a few times and you claimed you do not know what LeesjyM3's mention of "fake newskini" would likely means? Given the obvious PH claims by you, it is rather obvious that you chose to purposely distort the meaning and tried to claim innocence.

    Evidence of knowledge of Pakatan Harapan : Editing on PH's page[1], mention of PH in your edit summary "cannot prove my sources are siding with PH"[2], adding of picture to PH's page[3]

    Using malaysiakini as source : Note that this is part of a series of original content by you and not a revert of deletion of content. [4][5][6]

    Political bias : bias in your edit summary "Umno had already serveral cases elected bad performing politician in office"[7], spamming controversial events in UMNO article[8], likely copied huge chunks of another article aka 1MDB scandal into UMNO article giving it UNDUE weight when it is fully covered in its own article[9]

    While there were disruptive editors, rude and uncivil language and behaviour only make things worse and regardless of how other editors behave, we need to be CIVIL. I came to discuss in good faith and noted both disruptive behaviour on the both of you and your chose to be frivolous and sarcastic. If you only pointed your behaviour towards LeesjyM3, I could and likely let this go but to behave in the same way to me, this is rather unacceptable to me. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

    @Justanothersgwikieditor in that case i do apologies on this matter above as i haven't use PH for quite sometime so i didn't know what he was talking about and i also hope to discuss in good faith for the matters above. Hope you understand that i don't take estimation of certain words without certainty. I would like to point out that i sometimes may use words that provide misunderstanding. So yes i do not wish to start a fight on some matters. As i said that i do not edit certain things without research or blatant accusation but if someone have told me that if it is wrong the you can prove me wrong.hope that that clears your understanding. Francabicon (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

    @Francabicon I am not convinced by your reasoning and your non-apology. As much as you claim you like to discuss in good faith, but it is rather obvious you are pushing a certain viewpoint and placing a lot of WP:UNDUE weight on negative aspects of UMNO, via the controversy section. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I found this dispute following Justanothersgwikieditor's post to WT:MY. It is not clear, reading above, exactly what the dispute is about. Is the dispute about the existence of the controversy section as a whole, or over individual items within it? What are the edits/contents most at question here? CMD (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Thanks for reading. The dispute is about the existence of the controversy section. I broke down the section to its individual parts for easier discussion. It is best to read the Fresh discussion sub section onwards. I was mostly for the removal of all the subsections except for the 1MDB scandal but on second thoughts now, I am advocating for the removal of the entire section. Thanks! Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I would like to take a step back and point out how bad this article structure is. The article is almost completely the "History" section. "Ideology" has one paragraph, which is laughably poor for a political party that ruled a country continuously for 60 years. The Controversy section is the third, and final, prose section (the rest of the article is statistical tables). I agree controversy sections on the whole are poor, and should not exist, as controversy should be integrated into the rest of the article. However, there isn't much in this article to integrate into. Sadly good examples of Political party articles seem sparse (Bharatiya Janata Party and Progress Party (Norway) look to be among the better ones), but at the very least "Implementation of bumiputera policies" sounds like a topic that fits well into Ideology. CMD (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis From my reading of your reply, if the appropriate sections/structure are there, it will be good to move/merge some of the incidents to the correct sections. So for a quick breakdown of the listed incidents.

• 1MDB - To be moved to history with appropriate links to the main article, 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal.
• Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - I have already written this into history so it should not exist on its own.
• Keris Incident - As per my previous comment here, to be removed and to be merged into the appropriate general elections article as one of the factor or post elections analysis (incident was said to be a factor causing election results to be affected.).
• anti-ICERD rally - To be merged into Ideology section as part of their bumiputera policy
• Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - To be merged into Ideology section as part of their bumiputera policy. I had previously copied the section to Twelfth Malaysia Plan as the policy is carried out as 12MP so it is appropriate there as well.
• 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - To be merged into history of UMNO. The crisis is there in some form but probably needs a rewrite and linked to the main article.

Do let me have your views. Thanks. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into them all individually, but the principle sounds good. The only one you want to remove is the Keris incident? CMD (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well only the Keris incident is a personal incident and should be removed from here totally (as mentioned, it can exist in some certain forms in other articles if appropriate). My main objective is to remove a standalone controversy section and stop the constant edit war over it (the edit war keeps showing up in my monitored recent changes). If we can come to an agreement to move/merge the Controversy section to other sections, it should calm the page and editors down. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I accept your reasoning and i won't edit any further regarding this matter above. Francabicon (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

United Malays National Organisation → UMNO – frankly, the political party is rarely known by its full name (the current title) and it's not the common name of the subject and is reasonable to change it per WP:UCRN. Similar to the article FIFA 183.171.121.153 (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Trying to verify the nominator's statement that the political party is rarely known by its full name, I went to the Channel News Asia website to do some searching. the full name is used 527 times (often followed by the abbreviation in parentheses), while the abbreviation is used 674 times. I think this shows that "rarely known by its full name" is demonstrably false.

However, that's just one source. Similar searches at The Straits Times show 3429 hits for "UMNO" vs. 309 for "United Malays National Organisation". The New York Times is 129 to 1 in favor of the abbreviation. These are pretty high ratios. The titles of the sources cited in the article exclusively use the abbreviation. In light of this, I think a move make sense. Toadspike [Talk] 16:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing comments: Forgive my typo, fixed now I think... comment on my talk page if there's anything I have left messy. Note that this reverses

12:39, 15 November 2024 Normal rookie talk contribs block  96 bytes +96  Normal rookie moved page UMNO to United Malays National Organisation over redirect: Prefer the full name

which has no valid rationale. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.