Talk:Malaysian Islamic Party

message: PAS stated that it supports Taliban, and yet some users kept removing anything that suggests its ties with Islamist theocracy, persecution of non-Muslims, and support for Taliban. Can someone place the page under a protected status?
PulauKakatua19 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant reversions 

message: Pas has openly support for taliban and many pas memebers join isis. Why is this User:Amir Noor Muhammad keep taking it down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francabicon (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideologies and Controversy  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti Icerd and Sheraton Move 

message: I would like to ask how does writing criticism of english language not considered as controversies. According to 3skandar , it isn't significant enough to be considered as controversies. Also how does nationalism contradict with removing large chunks of the article. Francabicon (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  3skandar removal explanation 

message: According to Wikipedia:Criticism, "Articles should include significant criticisms of the subject while avoiding undue weight and POV forking."
The section "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section".
The problem is, this section often include giving too much voice the minority's views on what is considered as a controversies (undue weight) and there's also lack of incorporation of positive and negative material.
WP:UNDUE paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
* If a lot of people believe something, it should be easy to find references that support it.
* If only a few people believe something, it should be easy to find famous people who believe it.
* If almost no one believes something, it probably does not belong on Wikipedia.
Also as we can most of the article of another political parties doesn't have a controversy section, but instead integrated the controversies into other section for example: Democratic Action Party#Allegations of racism and chauvinism and Labour Party (UK)#Opposition and internal conflict (2010–present).
My suggestion for this issue is:
- Remove the controversies section and integrate into the article, incorporating positive and negative material.
- Remove some of the very small minority voice, that should not be considered as a controversies. 3skandar (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section needs to be removed or at least integrated into the the article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion