Jump to content

Talk:Mohamed Muizzu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Placeholderer (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 22 April 2024 (→‎Strong NPOV Concern: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Some vandalism happened

Just a historical record Ismehela (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox style, (honorific prefix)

In infoboxes, there is no His Excellency in Many infoboxes, For Example Joe Biden, in Joe Biden's Wikipedia Article there is no honorific prefix, so should we remove it or not?!. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use typically use honorifics within an article, except as part of a quote. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mohamed Muizzu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MAL MALDIVE (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: MAL MALDIVE (talk · contribs) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard practice for one to be the GA reviewer for an article that they wrote? Placeholderer (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not 48JCL (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article's prose does not pass the GA standard. Examples from a quick pass: "During Muizz's official visit to Turkey", "In January 4," curly quotation marks, "Muizzu also established Maldives Embassy in Ankara", hyphens instead of dashes, use of "Dr.", "launching Air Corp service", and much more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong NPOV Concern

I find it alarming that nearly 80% of this article was written by a single editor, and that the article, while in-depth, seems to lack any meaningful acknowledgement of negatives of Muizzu or his policies and seems to be a mouthpiece for an official government narrative. The article seems to me heavily skewed to be pro-Muizzu, including by using sources affiliated with the subject. For instance, the Economic Policy section says "Muizzu has also decided to form a creative economy in the Maldives", referenced with three sources that are all predicated on what Muizzu himself has said and without any third-party interpretation given. The Presidents Office [sic] is used for 15 references, while the President's Office [sic] is used for another 15. There are also 5 YouTube interviews of Muizzu, and 3 Maldives Embassy statements referenced (Maldives ambassadors are appointed by the president). Counting those alone, over a quarter of this article's references consist of information given out by him and his administration.

What should be done about this? I myself won't have time in the near future to restructure a big article. Placeholderer (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]