Wikipedia

Talk:Bingu wa Mutharika

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Possible contradiction

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

He later added the prefix 'wa' between his names to disguise his identity from Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda's state security, even though he was not a political opponent of Dr Banda.

One reason for wa Mutharika's decision to join the UN was his opposition to the regime of Malawi's self-declared "President for Life," Hastings Kamuzu Banda.

These two quotes seem to contradict each other. Was he a political opponent of Hastings Kamuzu Banda or not? Or was Banda his opponent at one time, but not at the time when he changed his name? This should be clarified. -kotra (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agricultural policy

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why isn't there anything about his agricultural policy here? Under his tenure Malawi ended its food-deficiency and became the largest food exporter in the region. --88.89.167.41 (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)LjReply

The page has been updated to reflect this information with references. Bgb2011 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Edits and Vvandalism

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page shoudl be watched for vadalism. There are people editing large chunks of the page and removing data that has been written by many contributers including references. Perhaps the page should be locked so that this doenst happen again. How can someon delete half a page ith references on them on a page this is vandallism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.28.140.254 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I second the above contributors suggestion. Could an admin possibly semi-lock this article, as it appears to mostly be anonymous editors who are doing the vandalism. — Life in General Talk/Stalk 05:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I agree that this article should be watched for vandalism. If it is possible to lock referenced parts of this article it would be helpful. Bgb2011 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This page is a joke! There are huge biased chunks of writing that are simply without citations and little mention of the world-renowned recent human rights abuses in Malawi. The paragraph on the president's so-called domestic economuic achievements is a remarkable demonstration of propaganda. Eithe these paragraphs are cited correctly, or they go.86.178.67.144 (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Policy non-compliance

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article does not comply with WP:NPOV, a mandatory policy, and much of it is unsourced. The article must comply with both WP:V and WP:BLP. It is promotional. Opinions and analyses are not attributed to their sources. A large amount of unsourced promotional material needs to be removed from this article or rewritten in a way that complies with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Like what? Ive removed some honorifics...and would do the same with sepcifics.Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Like the first term section and the first part of the second term section for example. I've struck out BLP above since this no longer applies. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Numbering

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mutharika's 2 predecessors as Malawi President are numbered. There's no reason why Mutharika shouldn't be numbered too, as this is the practice across many Head of state bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Im not supporting or opposing but WP:OSE is not a valid reason to argue for keeping or removing. it all should be done on its own merits and discussed.Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reactions

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Reactions are always notable to bbe included, including socia media these days. And whats wrong with suggesting what was discussed? (btw- i havent added that back, just the social media reaction but)Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

This edits (and these [1][2] too) are not agf and vandalism as there is a discuss and a refusal to discuss instead of reverting to have the whims and fancies of another editor as status quo despite having initiated discussionLihaas (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
On the first of the other edits: tags are to get OTHER editors to add sources if need be, theres is a reason for tags...in due course if nothing is coming we can remove +_ 2nd edit is : possible to tag to explain not removed before another editor acan explain when broughtto attention adn discussed bbecause one person doesnt understand. Sure its his right, but thats why we have BRD.Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
The tags have been there since January. If you want to retain the info, find sources. FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Lihaas, what are you talking about? Those diffs show me removing: a paragraph of unsourced puffery in a BLP; an obviously undue, as well as wholly inappropriate, reference to people talking about a televangelist on twitter in a section about the death of a head of state; an unsourced sentence whose meaning was unclear. The article is currently linked from the front page, so it needs not to breach core WP policies. FormerIP (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is complete weakly cited absolute not notable nonsense - Youreallycan 20:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

BLP? how is that when you mention in the next sentence "death of...."
The tagged section was recently re-modeled after the death, so i guess we can update the tags then. It is no t the pov version on befre. Please dont remove it on the false pretenses of BLP as a core policy when that is invalid as you contradicted yourself above. Its also as i said wholly differenct from the original incarnation, if you want to see that i changed it. as easy it as to go out and find sources.
Further instead of citing opinion of "non-notable" we could got consensus discussions to accomodate...because, as i did close off bits till consensus, instead of warring to keep in or out, we can accomodate on some stuff as in the social media fervour sparked off, which goes hand-in-hand with the fears of instability and power struggle mentioned (as well as on Banda's page). Further, as said on the ITN it is not a vindication of the prophecy coming true, its just a reason the social media world cited in discussion, thats the synthesis here to presume its vindication. No one is calling him a god. And Youreallycan has said nothing for discussion but cites his personal opinion as reasons for removal. Hence we accomodate' through discussion, even to the point of not adding the prophet part (seems like another blind revert) + heres a RS source [3]
And if the meaning is unclear than reword or ask...because its not understood by one doesnt mean its not by others. Seeing it on WP itself seems to indicate its a tribal group with their language Mvanip language...now thats what we get though discussionLihaas (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
2/3 issues seems resolved (and quite easily)...the last one now has a RS source. if thers no opposition we can add it back...or at the very least add back without the "prphet" bitLihaas (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
no idea what youre trying to day (or not" tryign to say ;))...but clearly a notable person as there is a WP link and no notability discussion judged him to bbe non-notable. Further, there is ntow a RS source as i showed.Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Lihaas, is doesn't really matter if there is an RS. It's obviously undue material for a section on the death of a head of state. We don't, for example, have a section on Pippa Middleton's bum in Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, even though it is mentioned is quite a few RS. Formerip (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okey, but the fact that there was a flurry of social media activity is notable ebnough to mentionLihaas (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Whaty is notable about the flurry, that is what social media does. - Youreallycan 08:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Religion?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Even though the quote naming him as "Catholic" (what kind of Catholic? Roman Catholic, as the British press would usually say?) comes from the BBC (though in passing), I would likek to see a more serious reference, since his parents are said to have been preachers of a Protestant denomination for decades.

I understand that Mutharika changed his name and could ahve as easily changed his religion, but a mention in passing of his religion by a media that had little access to authentic data of such a personal preference (considered too perosnal to enquire about in the West) does not seem plausible enough. 59.41.252.227 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Bingu wa Mutharika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bingu wa Mutharika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bingu wa Mutharika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bingu_wa_Mutharika&oldid=1195370003"