This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
A news item involving 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis was featured on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the In the news section on 1 March 2020.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all
COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to
join and to participate in
project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Malaysia and
Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I think the main crisis is sort of over now, after the appointment of Muhyiddin. And the earliest the opposition can call for a motion of no confidence, if there is any, will be in May, since the speaker just announce the date. I think we are in the aftermath now. Should I/we change the date in infobox and update the lead to indicate the crisis had ended? What do you all think? Lulusword(talk)03:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that the crisis is over. Parliament should have sat on 9 March
[1]. Stalling tactics by PN will merely defer a vote of no confidence in the new government until parliament sits. The crisis will only be over when all challenges to the new government have been resolved, one way or another.
WWGB (
talk)
04:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I forgot to put a source just now but here is the speaker's announcement saying that it was postponed to 18 May
[2] though I am not sure if that can be challenge (or not). Lulusword(talk)06:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Reverted edits
Hello @
El C: Can you kindly explain why do you revert the edits done for chronology? Dates don't really display the true chronology of an event and only clutter the page with unnecessary days. Notable event names are much clearer and concise than just dates which are only confusing to readers. As an alternative using months are better than individual dates. Thank you.
183.171.128.226 (
talk)
05:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)reply
IP, I think the edits are in the right direction, but some the sections are so oversized so as to be unwieldy. If you are able to get some more section or subsection breaks, then I remove my objection. I was actually going to write a talk page note explaining this, but got distracted elsewhere and just plain forgot — sorry about that!
El_C11:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)reply
It would be nice if the parliament table had a
sort key added to make it sort on the party column into Government (listed alphabetically) and then Opposition (listed alphabetically). This would make it a bit clearer. Alternatively an extra column for each "parliament as of date" with G/O (Government/Opposition) would work as well
Alex Sims (
talk)
02:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Regarding the revision on 28th April 2022, some of the sources used have certain political ideologies. We do not know the true intentions, whether the resignation by Dr Mahathir Mohamad is to prevent Anwar Ibrahim from succeeding him as Prime Minister or not, as it is a matter of opinion. What is factual is that he had lost the majority in Parliament, which automatically terminates his position as Prime Minister, as in accordance to the Law.
Hello @
Alphapast: thank you for taking this to the talk page, and also welcome to Wikipedia! I see you are new, so please feel free to ask questions at
WP:TEAHOUSE or on my talk page, and definitely try and familiarise yourself with the
WP:Five pillars.
As for
this edit, your suggestion for changing the wording does not align with what is in the source from
Reuters. It's important to know that Wikpedia has a policy of
no original research, meaning that we must follow what is in reliable sources rather than put in our own opinions, whether or not we agree with them. Reuters is considered a
reliable source on here, and this is one of the best sources available for an overview of this topic. Mahathir's resignation is also covered further down in the lead, and he did not lose the majority in parliament until BERSATU withdrew from Pakatan, so it does not make sense to mention his resignation before the withdrawal.
Thank you for your prompt reply. It is understandable that Wikipedia must not contain materials that is not reliable or taken from an unpublished source. However, there are in fact multiple reliable sources that that has different interpretations of the Sheraton Move and its chronology that are directly related to the topic of the article. One notable source is an article from Malay Mail published on 2nd March 2022 by Justin Ong, which thoroughly states the opposite from what is in the source from Reuters. Considering the contents of the article are taken directly from a former officer in the Prime Minister's Office, it would be an oversight not to take the contents of the article into account as well. Perhaps, with these two major differences of interpretations from two different reliable sources about the event, the page should mention the conflicting interpretations and highlight the inconsistency of receiving exact true facts regarding the topic of the article.
Alphapast (
talk)
06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks @
Alphapast:. All of this makes sense. However, in order to implement this you need to actually provide the source you are talking about in text, so each statement is supported by an inline citation. Also, Reuters is a highly reliable source that is respected for its minimal editorial voice (see in
WP:RSP so we would expect to give it more
WP:WEIGHT than others. What I have described is directly supported by the Reuters report. I am sure we can be sure to come to a consensus on the wording.
Arcahaeoindris (
talk)
21:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply