Talk:Mwai Kibaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya. See also The Kenya Portal.
Assessment comments

Is "Mwai Kǐbakǐ" a "more correct" spelling, or just a variant? Should this article be moved to Mwai Kǐbakǐ? -- The Anome 13:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that spelling from? --Ezeu 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Kikuyu article. On review, I'm getting a nasty feeling that that spelling may only occur on Wikipedia and its mirrors: have we been hoaxed? -- The Anome 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That page has been edited by a lot of people who seem ('seem') to know the subject reasonably well, so a hoax seems unlikely (though possible.) Could the ũ-style letters signify pronunciation in some way? --Cherry blossom tree 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The article should not be renamed, hoax or not. Mwai Kibaki is the most common spelling – in Kenya and elsewhere. --Ezeu 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Some parts missing

The article fails to give a bibliographical account of his life. From Kanu VP to Kanu minister and his formation of DP, The 92 elections and the 97 elections culminating in his role as the head of opposition and later the 2002 elections. Events just before the elctions including a mention of an accident would do justice to the article. His activities as president and his approach to governance also seem to have been muddled up.

[edit] Patch77 and 160 anon.

I seem to have bumped into an edit war just now - and am on a slow connection. Perhaps someone else could tidy things up later ? Wizzy…☎ 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Patch77 said

Clearly the article on mwai kibaki is not factual. the significance of minor events as well as shameless defamation of character is taking place . i have fowarded a complaint and at most untill the issue is resolved i think this article should be flagged.Certain sections of the article on mwai kibaki ,the president of kenya are libelous .The article does not meet Editors standards of not being biased or malicious .The article is clearly pushing an agenda and biased point of view. The third-party published sources are cleverly picked from government critics and news sources that have a history of being biassed such as the bbc when it comes to african issues.The writers of the article are representing their views and misrepresenting them as a majority view.sections of his personal life that state he has a second wife are of concern and of damaging repute to the president . i also take issue with the highlighting section concerning 2005 dismissal of the cabinet . though the event of the sacking did take place most of the insinuations in the article are false and clearly aimed at damaging the reputation of the president . most of the claims are infact out rightly false eg 2005 constitution- the article claims that "Though strongly supported by Kibaki, the majority of Kenya's citizens rejected it". what exactly constitutes a majority ,referendum results clearly showed that though the president was for the constitution it was defeated with a narrow victory for the opposition a 47% loss to a 53% win.

On the 2005 dismissal of cabinet- this events hadly qualifies as a major incident in the presidency of mwai kibaki its importance is grossly over blown.the article goes further to state that "The Cabinet was appointed, but some MPs were offered ministerships but did not take up posts" which also is a fabrication one agin aimmed at the presidents reputation.The laterst entry that On 15 November 2006 he reinstated Kiraitu Murungi as Energy minister, accused of corruption in the Anglo-Leasing scandal, and George Saitoti as Education minister, previously accused in the Goldenberg scandal.is infact misleading Kiraitu Murungi Energy minister, was never accused of corruption in the Anglo-Leasing scandal but rather he was accused of slowing down investigations into anglo leasing as justice minister a huge difference than the implied actual involVement in the scandal julius says

This article should adhere Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. You have several times removed text that can be viewed as negative, that does not fit to neutrality policy. Controversial allegations may be included if they are well sourced. This article clearly states that it is a rumor, not necessarily a fact that he has a second wife. Quality newspers, such as Daily Nation and The Standard, constantly write about Mary Wambui and his questionable status (they too state it may a bare rumor). This article has had some unsourced an even malicious claims, but is under process of being cleaned up. When it comes to dismissal of cabinet, it is a major event in Kenya, as it would be in any other country too. Certainly it deserves to be mentioned at Wikipedia. Finally, a small correction: 58%, not 53 % of Kenyans rejected the constitution. Julius Sahara 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] patch77 says

Could you cite the citations that show that the Nation newspapers said that Mwai kibaki had a rumoured second wife. As for the standard newspaper one can hadly use a tabloid as citation i might as well use a supermarket tabloid to claim that mwai kibaki'sparents are from mars.clearly statehouse nairobi has put out various warnings to journalist to stop this ridiculus agenda that is aimed at turnishing the presidents name .the standard newspaper is not a quality newspaper as you claim. The standard also has a history with the kibaki government following a raid conducted against the paper that was authorizrf by kenya's security minister. a matter that is yet to be fully resolved.

on the issue of the referendum vote a 58% percentage vote against a 42 hadly qualifies as a strong endosement when less than 50% voter turn out.you need to stop speculating and insinuating events.what qualifications to you have to even give predictions on upcomming elections stating opion polls is one thing but insinuating that the leader in the polls will only win if the opposition doesnt mess up is purely speculation especially when opion polls show that he has a bigger percentage lead than all the opposition candidates put together . How else can you explain having two lines on kibakis economic policies when he was in charge of a decade of growth in kenya's economy in the 70's and is currently guiding kenya through a period of unprecedented economic growth of 5.8% with a target of 7% in the next year

If you find reliable references about Kenya's growing economy, please add it to this page. That would be constructive editing. Unsolicited removal of content is not. Julius Sahara 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The BBC citation works for reporting current events. If the Kenyan government has, to date, put out signed denials of the second wife, especially by Mwai Kibaki himself, please quote their sources Patch77 so they can be included in the article. KP Botany 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] purported members of my immediate family

News

Wednesday, January 7, 2004

I have only one wife, says Kibaki By NATION Reporter President Kibaki yesterday declared that he has only one wife – Mrs Lucy Muthoni Kibaki.

In a terse statement released by the Presidential Press Service, President Kibaki asked that the media and the public stop making any references to any other person or persons as his family.

"Let it be known to all that my immediate family consists of the following," the statement said, listing First Lady Lucy and her four children.

The statement, headed "Clarification", then went on to list the children as daughter Judy Wanjiku Kibaki and sons Jimmy Kibaki, David Kagai Kibaki and Tony Githinji Kibaki.

"Kindly refrain from making references about any other purported member of my immediate family," the statement concluded.

I have changed the article to reflect this information, and made the tone of the comments more neutral, as is appropriate for information of this nature. The comments from the BBC will stand, as they are simply that: a report of information from a news resource.
However, in the future please add a link to your source. It is originally from a Kenyan newspaper, and I will add the specific reference after I check the newspaper at the library. KP Botany 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kiraitu and Saitoti appointments

patch77 says Though i still think that the reappointments of George Saitoti and kiraitu murungi to the cabinet have no place in the article concerning mwai kibaki,due to the insignificance in the biographical life of mwai kibaki . i still that even though you it is worth mentioning you fail to mention that Hon. Saitoti was cleared by a Consitutional Court seating in Nairobi and that the three judge panel ordered all references to his name being linked to goldenberg be struck from all official documents on the issue clearing him of any wrongdoing . I have also corrected your statement that Hon. Kiraitu was involved in the anglo leasing scandal. He was infact accused of preventing/impeding the invesigations as justice and constututional minister and not in taking part in the scandal . He was also cleared by the kenya anti corruption agency since his accuser is yet to produce evidence against him.Please try to be more neutral and avoid bias against the kenyan government and people . This is not the forum to settle any political scores you might have.

Unsigned comment by User:160.83.64.78

[edit] BBC-bias

the BBC has a long history of slanted reporting on africa. the bbc in the past 7 years has not published one positive article concerning kenya.The British government/establishment has in the past three years been involved in well documented confrontations with the kibaki government involving the loss of contracts that the british have historically held.

Unsigned comment by User:160.83.64.78

If they're "well-documented," particularly outside of Kenya, post links and add the information to the section on Kibaki's personal life. I will look up information about the integrity and bias of the Kenyan press, also, so the article can allow readers to see the biases of both, should they be well-documents in verifiable and reliable sources. This is not a problem. Simply provide sources. KP Botany 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slanted reporting

The bbc constantly states that Kenya is corrupt but fails to make any mention of the british firms involved in both major scandals that have rocked kenya. The bbc has also failed in any of its reporting to report the Economic growth taking place across Africa and Kenya for that matter .I think the issue of foreign reporting in africa is not a new issue.Therefore as much as i respect your view that the bbc citations stand . i question the bbc's neutrality especially with the impending loss of frequencies and braodcast rights that it faces in kenya due to other unrelated issues. Expecting the BBC to report fairly on Zimbabwe ,Kenya or any sub Saharan African country or pretending that it does is shameful at most

Unsigned comment by User:160.83.64.78

British firms involved in international corruptions scandals are frequently reported in the international news. You can probably get information on British firms in Kenya from the Economist. If you have this information, simply provide it from a reliable source. I will be glad to find the information on biases on the Kenyan side to counter your sources, if this is an issue.

In addition, if your intention is to get this information about Mwai Kibaki unnoticed I hope you realize that you are using techniques that are working against it. It doesn't receive much notice in the western press at all, except for the attempts in Kenya to supress the information. However, many Wikipedia users do the same thing I do, they check the page of Recent Changes. That's how I came to read the Mwai Kibaki article in the first place and learn about the second wife scandal: your frequent edits of this article are bringing it to the attention of a lot of Wiki readers, including me. I have no interest in the information at all, and would not even know about it, except for your edit war attempts to supress the information.

The information has simply been provided as information from a Western news source about Mwai Kibaki. It has been countered by a statement from Kenya. But it's big play in the Western press, from reviewing the articles is entirely due to denials and attempts to supress the information.

Simply find reliable sources that go directly to the contents of the article and add them where they are relevant. Most new sources are not without bias, and particular biases are studied, and written up. Westerners realize that, in particular with Africa, economic interests can impede the free flow of accurate information. This should always be noted, when it comes from accurate, reliable and verifiable sources.

Even a section on British firms involvements in scandals in Kenya, if under Mwai Kibaki's rule would be useful. And, if they came from unbiased resources. I urge you to at least start with the Economist. KP Botany 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Patch 77 says i am not mwai kibakis official biographer but i think anyone reading the points i have made can see the bias that you have against our president . my intention is not to supress the truth but to bring into light the lies that have been posted . i also notice that you did not mention my corrections on kiraitu and saitoti nor did you post the statement from statehouse concerning the wife issue .let me remind you that in africa having 2 or even 4 wives is not a scandal and it is not out of the ordinary the fact is Mwai kibaki has one wife period .On the issue of the two ministers natural justice is clear indiviual are innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law.Hon.Prof Saitoti has been cleared by a court yet you fail to point that out .once again i fail to see the relevance of the appointments in relation to this profile .The president has made over 50 appointments since his presidency began .why should the developments two days ago merit mention in his profile .

No, I have no bias one way or the other. However, you have raised my curiosity and I am learning a lot. The fact is that the BBC, a reputable news organization has reported that he has two wives, so have other news organizations from all over the world. I haven't been making any substantive edits, only copy edits, so you'll have to take the rest of the issue up with others. KP Botany 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of slanted reporting i am amazed that you insist that i am trying to supress information . i am happy that wiki readers can go through all the edits and i am sure most would agree that your current edit is along way from your orginal post. your positions on some issues have changed including the fact that you are now mentioning the positives in the kibaki administration.Had it not been for my efforts your original view of kibaki would still stand .You insist that i post articles from the economist concerning the British firms involved in the scandals i suggest that since you were the one who mentioned the scandals that you include the balanced information afterall curruption involves two parties.The notion that african governments are corrupt and that the west is clean wont fly african governments are corrupt because some western companies and governments bride and corrupt them. makining them just as corrupt .its that simple i would only think that if being neutral is the issue then writers and editors should give the balanced story of events .trying to paint a negative false picture no matter how cleverly you do it is simply unacceptable. you said in your prior post that you would include the denial from statehouse concerning the wife -why havent you done so i think as the author of the mwai kiabaki page it is your responsibility and not mine.However untill the issue concerning a second wife is resolved i suggest you take it down since the president and the government has been very clearon this issue.i think the continnued posting of the second wife issue even though cited fits into wikis [description of defamation]"statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character". torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing) .your continued publication of the offending material is unacceptable

No, you're reading others' edits. My original position is still neutral, although my suspicions are raised by your continuing to remove the news mention of the two wives.
I am not the author of this page. That's not how Wikipedia works, and as I've stated, I've made no substantive edits, only requests for verifications and copyedits. KP Botany 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How neutral can your edits be when you continue to cite slanderous information concerning the man .even though you cite other stories which in themselves are slanderous. i think the fact that this issue has been contested in this manner claerly shows that it should be dropped from the profile .we have to be fair if we want people to believe we cant cite false reporting and then hide behind it when the evidence is claer that they reports of a second wife are false -thats my two cents

The article states that the media has reported that he has a second wife. This is true. It states that Kibaki has denied this. This is also true. Including these statements is how the neutral point of view policy works. Whether the original statements constitute libel is fo no concern to us - we simply report that they were made. See Roman Polanski#Vanity Fair libel case for another example of this. --Cherry blossom tree 16:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Cherry blossom tree.
Patch77, the only information I have actually cited is that which you provided, the report about Kibaki denying that he considers Mary Wambui his wife. KP Botany 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Just a note to say I've listed this article at that page, requesting that someone else looks at it just incase I'm seeing it completly incorrectly. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)




cherry i hope this matter will come to a quick resolution before we have to request for the true identity of the author who keeps pasting the slanderous information. we are now prepared to take further action if the issue can not be resolved by wikipedia. we are certain the authors of the slander are the same authors of the raila odinga profile

Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:No legal threats. I have said before, if you have a problem with the content then you can talk about it. Repeatedly removing content without discussion will not get you anywhere. --Cherry blossom tree 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kibaki's wives

The quotes about wives are from 2004 news. Nothing newer and more definite? `'mikkanarxi 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's simply a quote from a news report, nothing more or less, for both the Kenyan and BBC. There are other reports in the media on this, though, so feel free to search for them, and if something better or more interesting comes up, then source it and include it. However, it's not that interesting compared to other news about Mwai Kibaki, and if not for these continued discussions and vandalism attempts would probably have flown under the radar to nothingness. All that time spent on this one little section when the article could have been front-loaded about the accomplishments of the man or anything going on right now. Go ahead, though, and find something more current if you want, and if it is appropriate. If it is inappropriate or builds the section beyond its importance, please discuss it here first. Cheers, KP Botany 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, can you flesh out his private life any better in a way that relates to his politics? Or the article itself? The Western Press can be, imo, like this: gnaw an off-subject bone to death in the face of compelling news. All this time spent with this two wives bit could have turned this into a really useful article about the man instead. KP Botany 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The news was reported in 2004 and ran its course then. Most of the media coverage I read seemed pretty satisfied that the story was true, though it was never definite and it was officially denied. I'm not aware of any developments since then. I've edited that article to make the time period more clear. --Cherry blossom tree 23:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Post-election criticism

Ookoz added criticism to Kibaki's role in and after the presidential elections (besides some yellow-press kind of text, which I couldn't care less about). I do not want to appraise the quality of this edit as optimal, however, I suppose it is common sense that the article should be extended by a paragraph covering the post-election problems. In my opinion, Ookoz' edit might well serve as a starting point for improvements by others. Nevertheless, the users Cherry blossom tree and Wizzy have simply removed the edit, without any further notice. I propose to discuss the content of the edit rather than deleting it completely. Therefore, I revert again and request the opponents to explain their objections, or better, to enhance the original edit. Tomeasy (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIVING says :- The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.. It also says :- Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
That is what I and Cherry blossom tree did. I found your Kagame refs - and re-inserted your piece. I re-removed the bit about Lucy, and it stays out until you find a reference. Wizzy…☎ 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and the incorporation of the reference. As I said, the content was added by Ookoz, not me. Furthermore, my detachment to the story concerning Lucy was anyway very loose. I think, I also pointed that out quite clearly. So, I am absolutely fine with you removing this content. Thanks for your efforts. Tomeasy (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's meant by area?

Cited from the article: "Kibaki's first cabinet was a careful balancing act with one Minister or Assistant Minister coming from each of Kenya's forty-two areas." Kenya is organized in 8 provinces, 69 districts, 210 constituencies, and 497 divisions. So it's unclear to me what is meant by area here? Tomeasytalk 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)