Talk:Operation Lalang
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
White Paper?
editAccording to the White Paper explaining the arrests, various groups who had played up "sensitive issues" and thus created "racial tension" in the country had exploited the government's liberal and tolerant attitude.
Does anyone have a copy of this white paper? Is it reproduced online?--Han (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Implications for civil liberties
editThis entire section is unsourced and makes the article look POV. There are some facts presented - amending the Printing Presses and Publications Act and Police Act, flushing out The Star - but no sources linking those facts as outcomes of Operation Lalang. Other parts of the section constitute POV or speculation that has tangential relevance to the article (eg bias of the mass media into the 1990s).
I have tagged the section with citation-needed templates and propose to get rid of any unsourced material that remains after a week or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is true that theres a lot of unsourced things, but Msia has a bad record of keeping or releasing things. Try looking for any statistic for... say a college assingment. Its literally impossible to get. Getting full info will take quite a while, if not a long time. (115.132.140.74 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
- I understand that fully. With controversial claims, I think it preferable to wait until the sources are found and then put the material in the article, rather than put the material in and then try to find sources for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Removed unsourced material per above. I have no objection to the restoration of the material if it can be sourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I tagged the section for NPOV before reading the talk page. I completely agree with Mkativerata's sentiments. At the moment the section is still unsourced, and it's written with a very pro-opposition / anti-government stance. While I'm aware that finding sources for the statements in the article is difficult or even impossible, it's still necessary for the material to be reliable. As such I'm tagging both for NPOV and for references.Banedon (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Removed unsourced material per above. I have no objection to the restoration of the material if it can be sourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been months after the references tag and still no sources, so since it's still heavily NPOV I'm removing the text again. Banedon (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)