This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Malaysia Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Forestry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry 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.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent edits to the page seem to establish that the subject or an associate, specifically under the Samuel London account, is editing the content in a non-neutral, autobiographical manner. The following evidence supports this claim and discussion is encouraged:

• The correction of the names of the subject's parents, which are neither public domain information nor referenced.
• Edits to the Wikipedia page of the subject’s spouse and the page for her website.
• Extensive, long, and detailed edits lacking references, which are only cited after being reverted or queried by other users.
• A significant reliance on sources from the subject's blog or books.
• A non-neutral portrayal of the criminal litigation involving the subject and a Malaysian royalty figure.

Allthingsm1 ( talk) 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I am not the subject of the article though I have a close familiarity with her work and the 1MDB saga. Responses to the points above in turn:

- The names of the subject's parents are public domain and I had carefully referenced them. (I note that Allthingsm1 has found a further public domain reference to them and has thereby added their middle names, which I was not aware of.)

- As it is my field of interest, it is hardly surprising that I have edited a few other pages on overlapping subjects.

- I am a newbie here and admittedly I did not include all citations before publishing. However in my subsequent edits over the next couple of days, I added citations for the whole article. I fail to see how the fact that the citations were added slightly later is relevant to the reliability of the contributions.

- There are very many citations I added which are not of the subject's website or book. But I note that citing the source's own website or book is permissible within Wikipedia's policy. Furthermore, the website (and book) in question are widely recognised in financial and journalistic circles as reliable, as the record of unsuccessful legal threats they have withstood from malefactors (several of whom have subsequently been convicted of crimes and imprisoned as a result of the information published on the site) attests. In a similar vein with regard to reliability, note the number of stories Rewcastle Brown has uncovered and broken on the website in collaboration with high-profile newspapers such as the Sunday Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Edge. The number of important awards she has garnered for her investigative journalism surely also gives weight to the reliability of her news site. Therefore I do not accept that such citations are in some way invalid.

- I do not at all accept that my very factual portrayal of the criminal case involving Rewcastle Brown's sentencing to two years in prison for defamation of the Sultanah of Terengganu was non-neutral. Allthingsm1, on the other hand, introduced a tendentious rephrasing, which I have now reversed, which seemed to imply as fact that Rewcastle Brown suggested in the book the Sultanah wielded undue influence in Terengganu politics -- thereby begging the question of the very issue which was in dispute in the court. I have not (or at least not yet -- I think probably best to defer to neutral and experienced editors on this) reversed the other revisions about the case that he introduced, though his emphasis on quoting the detail of criticism made by the sultanate's court of Rewcastle Brown seems in contrast to his eagerness to abbreviate, elide and eliminate -- presumably on the grounds that they are not notable? -- the details of legal battles which unfolded in her favour (though I have likewise refrained from reversing those revisions, again leaving it for now to those more experienced than me to take a view on what constitutes notable).

Since the above comments begin by casting aspersions on my neutrality, I am afraid I think it is only fair to ask Allthingsm1 to consider whether he has any affiliations he should be declaring? Especially given the documented history of smear campaigns against Rewcastle Brown, including through the editing of this page, and that there appears to be a puzzling tendency of the revisions he has made to minimise and abbreviate information unfavourable to Barisan Nasional, Najib and his family and to introduce very subtly disobliging references to Rewcastle Brown calling into question or minimising her work. This appears to accord to a longer-term pattern: I note that in January 2022 one of the earliest edits by Allthingsm1 to Wikipedia was to a page about Rewcastle Brown's website Sarawak Report in which he changed the opening line from 'Sarawak Report is a whistle-blowing site and political blog' to 'Sarawak Report is an opinion, commentary and political activism blog' https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarawak_Report&diff=prev&oldid=1064626774 Given that its activity has principally been as a news site publishing highly newsworthy documents obtained from whistle-blowers or elsewhere revealing corruption (and resulting in some of the most significant global law enforcement action in the history of fighting kleptocracy), his rephrasing to eliminate the term 'whistle-blowing' and dismissively characterise it, as disgraced Prime Minister Najib's cheerleaders attempted to, foremost as an 'opinion', 'commentary' and 'activism' website is a rather telling indication that he is perhaps on shaky ground when preaching about bias. Samuel London ( talk) 14:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your detailed and passionate response, @ Samuel London. It is clear from the length and detail of your reply that you are deeply engaged with the subject matter, which could suggest some degree of bias. These remarks are not personal; they are about collectively enhancing the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia. Here are my thoughts on the points raised:

1. Citations and Timing: I recognise the challenges new editors might face. However, accuracy and timely citation are critical, especially for contentious information. It's good practice to include citations at the time of editing.
2. Use of Primary Sources: Utilising primary sources such as the subject's own writings is permissible, but an over-reliance on these sources can lead to a biased portrayal. This is particularly controversial when the subject is ongoing litigation involving the author of the primary sources. Expanding our sources to include a broader spectrum of secondary material is essential to providing a balanced perspective.
3. Portrayal of Legal Issues: Maintaining neutrality in describing legal matters is essential. Regarding the edits about the Sultanah’s case, I noticed they were reversed by an anonymous IP user. I assume this was you, not logged in. My edits were intended to summarise the situation concisely, which is required for an encyclopaedic tone. Whether it involves a phrase, a paragraph, or a chapter, the essence of the case concerns libel, and the details should reflect that without implying guilt or speculation.
4. Characterization of Sarawak Report: In response to the previous discussions regarding my edits to the description of Sarawak Report, I maintain that the terms "gossip," "commentary," and "political activism" are accurate reflections of some facets of its output. The platform’s independent operation and the fact that it is managed by a single individual allow it to publish information more rapidly than traditional media outlets, which may undergo slower, more rigorous vetting processes. This agility has enabled Sarawak Report to break significant stories, such as the 1MDB scandal. However, the same operational characteristics have also resulted in instances of erroneous reporting, as seen with the incorrect reports about Jho Low’s nationality, the allegations concerning Kevin Morais’s death, and the purported text messages linked to Aker, which were later debunked. This dual nature highlights both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the platform.
5. Bias and Conflict of Interest: I appreciate your call for transparency. My goal is to ensure factual accuracy and neutrality. I am open to community commentary and further discussion to improve our editing approach.
6. Template Consideration: Given the ongoing concerns about the autobiographical tone of the article, I propose reinstating the ‘autobiography’ and ‘resume’ templates to alert readers and editors to these issues until they can be adequately addressed.

Let’s aim to work collaboratively and involve other experienced editors to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and verifiability.

Thank you, Allthingsm1

P.S. I prefer the pronouns she/her. Thank you for respecting this. ( talk) 23:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you Allthingsm1 for your reply and its general tenor of commitment to accuracy and neutrality with which I entirely concur. I must, however, take slight issue with the charge levelled in your second sentence “it is clear from the length and detail of your reply that you are deeply engaged with the subject matter, which could suggest some degree of bias.” This charge could just as readily be directed at you or indeed, I suspect, most people contributing to Wikipedia on a subject within their ambit – it can hardly be a qualification for contributors not to be engaged with their subjects! Nonetheless, I appreciate the collaborative attitude you emphasise and would likewise welcome further editorial discussion and the input of other editors. A few specific comments on your points:

1. Citations and Timing As per my previous message, I consider myself suitably admonished and shall endeavour to ensure all citations are added at the time of publishing any new material!

2. Use of Primary Sources I have no quarrel of course with the principle that as broad a range of reliable secondary sources is important. And that the subject’s writings are controversial as a principle source in cases involving ongoing litigation. However, as far as I can see the only ongoing litigation referred to on the page is that involving the Sultanah of Terengganu and the main sources for the case we are using there are media reports from Malaysiakini, the New Straits Times, the Malay Mail and the BBC. I would merely add that carefully using an involved party’s published writing on the matter surely remains appropriate to the limited degree of a source for that party’s claims, to elucidate the description of the case.

3. Portrayal of Legal Issues (the Sultanah of Terengganu case) Indeed, I was logged out on my computer and forgot to log in while inputting a few changes. Of course I agree that the case should be reported neutrally (notwithstanding the longstanding context of politically motivated persecution of Rewcastle Brown by arms of the Malaysian state, which I think is alluded to appropriately and sufficiently by mentioning a few of the large number of respected international organisations that have condemned the prosecution.) My principle concern with your revision, and why I amended it, was that it could easily be read to imply that Rewcastle Brown’s book suggested that the Sultanah wielded undue influence in state affairs and that the main question before the court was whether this were true. When in fact Rewcastle Brown’s position is that the phrase implied nothing of the sort and this is the major point in dispute on which the courts are being called upon to rule.

4. Characterization of Sarawak Report I think the issue here is not whether, as you put it ‘"gossip," "commentary," and "political activism" are accurate reflections of some facets of its output.’ (Though I certainly don’t think ‘gossip’ is.) But rather whether these are an appropriate summary of its foremost and principle output – which has been publications of leaked documents and investigations leading to the world’s biggest kleptocracy law enforcement actions. Clearly they are not. The Times of London publishes recipes and features on fashion models but I don’t think anybody would describe it foremost as a cookery and style publication. Your subsequent comments about the difference between its publication process and that of a large newspaper may well be true but don’t have a bearing on this. I am afraid that even large newspapers occasionally get things wrong and have to make corrections and though I have not conducted any statistical analysis from my familiarity with its output I would personally be most surprised if Sarawak Report were less accurate than mainstream media sources. Moreover, I’m not familiar with the errors you cite. As legal procedures tangentially relating to the Kevin Morais case are ongoing it may be that we should leave discussion of that aside for the moment but regarding your other examples of supposed erroneous reportage by Sarawak Report: I would be grateful, so as to become better informed on the matters, if you could elaborate. I was only very vaguely aware of the Aker case but I don’t think Sarawak Report took a position on whether the texts were fabricated or not but simply reported that the chief justice’s department filed a police case and began an investigation into them, so was there really an error there? And could you provide a link to anything about your assertion that they were later debunked as I had not realised they were. Also, what error about Jho Low’s nationality?

5. Bias and Conflict of Interest Quite agree!

6. Template Consideration Let us collaborate to adequately and expeditiously address any issues on this. Now that you have extensively edited it, I would be keen to hear what issues remain that you feel might justify the templates.

I agree that most of your further edits have improved the clarity, accuracy and neutrality of the article, but there are a few tweaks to them that seem judicious to me. Where it is not obvious I shall endeavour to be clear in the editorial comments on why I have introduced them. I am still only getting to know the ropes here but would it perhaps be appropriate for me to introduce a thorough discussion here on this Talk page of any edits which might involve a more significant point of contention? Samuel London ( talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Samuel London,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on my comments and for highlighting areas where we can deepen our discussion and refine the article further. Let’s dive into a few points:

1. Citations and Timing: I’m pleased we agree on the necessity of prompt citation. This practice solidifies Wikipedia's credibility and assists both readers and other editors in verifying content quickly.
2. Use of Primary Sources: It's reassuring to know that our primary sources for the Sultanah of Terengganu's case are robust and diversified. I appreciate your clarification about using primary documents to represent the parties' claims. Such careful selection of sources ensures we maintain an objective lens.
3. Portrayal of Legal Issues: Your explanation clarifies the edits you made whilst logged out. It’s essential that we avoid any language that could be misconstrued as implying allegations or conclusions not supported by the source material. This neutral stance is crucial, especially in politically sensitive cases.
4. Characterisation of Sarawak Report: I understand your concerns about potentially misrepresenting the primary nature of Sarawak Report's work. My aim was not to detract from its investigative achievements but rather to point out that its rapid dissemination of information might sometimes skip the stringent verification typical of larger newsrooms. Nevertheless, the term "gossip" may not fully capture the nuances of its reporting style. Here’s further elaboration on the examples you mentioned: a) **Jho Low’s Nationality**: Sarawak Report erroneously reported that Jho Low was an American citizen. Errors like this are significant, particularly when they involve key figures in major political and financial scandals. b) **Involvement of Najib Razak in the Kevin Morais Case**: Sarawak Report's suggestion that Najib Razak was involved in the kidnap and murder of Kevin Morais introduces substantial controversy. Such serious allegations, if unsubstantiated, could be seen as excessive. c) **Fabricated Text Messages**: The publication by Sarawak Report of what were later shown to be fabricated text messages highlights the dangers of reporting unverified information. Instances like this underscore the necessity of a thorough verification process to maintain journalistic integrity and trust. These examples are just a few illustrations and are not an exhaustive list. If you wish to explore these issues further, the underlying articles and reports can be easily found with a simple Google search. Let’s discuss how we might more accurately reflect Sarawak Report's contributions to journalism without simplifying its impact.
5. Template Consideration: I’m glad we can collaborate on refining the article further. Let's examine the remaining content under the 'autobiography' and 'resume' concerns to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutral point of view standards.

I'm currently on holiday for a few weeks, but I look forward to resuming our collaboration upon my return. At that time, I'll revisit this thread and begin offering specific suggestions regarding the issues I've highlighted. Your detailed understanding of the topic greatly contributes to our goal of achieving accuracy and neutrality. I also appreciate more editors joining our discussion to enhance our work further.

Best regards, Allthingsm1 ( talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello everyone,

I would like to focus our discussion on the portrayal of the ongoing criminal libel case involving the Sultanah of Terengganu. It's important to note that in the state where this case is being prosecuted, the complainant is a member of royalty, and the laws regarding libel differ significantly from those in other jurisdictions, such as the UK where libel is not a criminal offense.

Clare Rewcastle Brown has openly criticized the court, labeling it as biased and describing the litigation as 'revenge'. Additionally, various journalism protection NGOs have publicly condemned the case and the ruling. It is essential that our coverage includes these critiques to provide a balanced perspective.

Equally critical is representing the viewpoint of the court, which defends its proceedings with specific legal rationales. Including this perspective ensures that our readers receive a comprehensive overview of the case from all sides involved.

Our goal should be to present this complex situation in a way that is not only neutral and informative but also allows our readers to draw their own conclusions based on a well-rounded presentation of facts. I suggest we carefully review the current content and discuss potential revisions to ensure we achieve this balance. Avoiding excessive detail that might seem autobiographical is also advisable, as we should focus on the legal and ethical implications central to the case.

Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to your insights.

Best regards, Allthingsm1

Another instance of something not going to fruition, this seems more recentism WP:RECENT and 10 years from now would this warrant so much space?-- AhmedFaizP ( talk) 16:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The recent addition nullifies this section. If it is just allegations then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I think they both should be left off.-- AhmedFaizP ( talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Clare Rewcastle Brown's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes.com":

• From Wikipedia: Naom Cohen (May 1, 2014). "Media: Open-Source Software Specialist Selected as Executive Director of Wikipedia". The New York Times.
• From Sarawak Report: Mullany, Gerry (16 August 2013). "Barred From Malaysia, but Still Connecting With Critical Jabs". The New York Times.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply