Talk:Sikh Federation (UK)/Archive 1

Archive 1

References are important in Wikipedia

Please don't remove references

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/spasticus/blog/2008/04/21/red_ken_terrorist_link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not refrences. Please look at wikipedia policy. You have been warned about this by other editors. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One must be careful, SH, as some "blogs", especially those at wp:RS sites are acceptable sources. In this case, even though the blog is at a site that in and of itself is a wp:RS, this does indeed seem to be a true blog, not subject to editorial control, so I support your deletion in this case.- sinneed (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut content.

It appears that much of what I cut can be sourced to 2 ELs added (badly) to the article, should an editor be interested in doing so. - sinneed (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, while the cuts were reverted, there was nothing done to provide sources for the various statements. These really are essential as we must comply with wp:BLP.- sinneed (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As an editor has objected to my deletion as vandalism, please note that I encourage any interested editor to restore it, while complying with wp:BLP. I have no reason to believe the statements were false or true... I don't know the guy... but the statements were negative and unsourced. This won't fly.- sinneed (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs expansion

I added a bit. I had thought there would be more at the OBE site but the data is very very minimal...I was surprised. My interest in this article was mainly to mine it for sources for the Sikh extremism article and clean it up from a wp:BLP perspective. I don't have the level of interest to write a useful bio article... I find those to be more painful than they can possibly be worth.- sinneed (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Defamation of Charachter?

Am I reading this right. This fellow seems to have an immpeccable record. A civil servant, signed up to the official secrets act, yet he is a member of a terrorist group? When you become a Civil Servant you are automatically excluded if you are the member of terrorist organisations. I think this article has real problems.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When he was a member it was not a terrorist organization.

What is the defamation you see? You are obligated to remove it, if you do.- sinneed (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I reworked some wording...the sources were clearer than the text.- sinneed (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok let me see if I am reading this right. This squeaky clean, civil servant (who has signed up to Official Secrets Act); is trusted by Her Majesty's Government; trusted by top UK politicians; gets an OBE (your chrachter and background is checked for that too), is a memeber of a Sikh Organisation, which is subsequently listed as a terrorist organisation, which he leaves? This sounds like a character assasination rather than an article. --Sikh-history (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the OR flag.

I think I hear you saying you think the press is being unfair. Feel free to let the press organs know you are unhappy with them. If interested, you might find other wp:RS that have statements more to your liking, and add them, see wp:BALANCE.

If you believe any of the sources cited are not wp:RS, please bring it to the talk page.

If you find anything that is not sourced, you can remove it or flag it.

If you find something that is sourced to a citation that does not cover it, you can correct it or flag it.

He is reputed to have worn an ISYF shirt to presentation... the ISYF was not banned until afterward... and it disbanded.

Again, reminder, EACH OF US is responsible for removing any defamation of character that is not THOROUGHLY sourced by wp:RS.

- sinneed (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot be bothered Sineed. The lunatics are running the asylum. As for T-Shirts, take a look at these h t t p:/ /s h o p.c a f e p r e s s.c o m/sikh. I see kids wearing T-shirts like that all the time. Are they terrorists? Are they violent? or are they just rebelling against authority? Make your mind up. --Sikh-history (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"There's no suggestion he was an illegal immigrant either but shoud we put that in too ?"

If someone added an article about illegal entry, then yes. wp:BALANCE. We could delete the ISYF entirely, if you feel it isn't needed. Otherwise, yes, we do need to make it clear the article is not saying or implying that he was associated with terrorism or with the ISYF after it disbanded.- sinneed (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion to an unknown point in the past. Please stop.

Please make the edit to replace whatever content meets wp:BLP, and otherwise meets the WP guidelines for inclusion, etc. - sinneed (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can show a connection of this individual to terrorism, meeting wp:BLP, do not continue to restore ELs to terrorism sites.

This fails wp:BLP. If somehow I am not understanding how this article links the individual to terrorism, please explain, and I will thank you.- sinneed (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

South Asian Terrorism Portal

Moving this out of the body of the article, and into wp:EL. Fails wp:RS. Insufficient notability.- sinneed (talk)

Upon review, I removed this entirely, as there is no link shown between this individual and terrorism... so linking it to the South Asian Terrorist Portal is not appropriate, wp:BLP applies.- sinneed (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ISYF and lobbying efforts.

There are other sources for the ISYF linkage, and if I can find the energy I'll add a couple. The subject doesn't deny ISYF involvement, he simply denies ISYF is a terrorist organization.

I do not understand the inclusion of the unrelated remark about nobody-lobbying-the-government-guy. Mr. Singh was gathering support FOR LOBBYING... the article doesn't claim he was making a lobbying tour. Unless someone has a reason to keep that mention, I am going to kill it.- sinneed (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Defense of Sikh rights

I propose to add a new section: Defense of Sikh rights, with a bit about his support of rights of Sikhs, mention the Sikh Federation UK.

This would include sources from: news search

This would replace the ISYF section, I should think.

- sinneed (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was sorry to see this article moved without discussion.

While I welcome the new article, it is in no way a substitute for the article about the OBE recipient and outspoken advocate for Sikh rights and interests.- sinneed (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

SF (UK) in book

Sikhs in Britain- By Gurharpal Singh, Darshan Singh Tatla
Page 120 has the ISYF - to - SF (UK) succession statement (but not a "widely", sorry)
Page 120 has the "All-party Parliamentary group" statement

In citing a book, is there an easy way to cite to different page numbers without duplicating the ref or using academic notations that many, many readers will find utterly impenetrable? (Yes, I reallize it is no one's job to teach me, just asking. :) )- sinneed (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See-also to Sikh extremism ?

I think I understand this would not belong on the BLP... but can I safely place it here? There *ARE* implications that the SF... which seems to be the umbrella organization for the SF UK(?) is associated with extremism... everyone with a turban is instantly associated with extremism due to profiling. Unless there is a fairly quick objection, I will add it.- sinneed (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Collateral Damage: Livingstone Gilligan Feud

We must include the fact that there was a lot of collateral damage in the Livingstone v Gilligan (Evening Standard) feud. I have listed the sources:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/13/associatednewspapers.pressandpublishing
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/11/pressandpublishing.livingstone
• http://www.timeout.com/london/big-smoke/features/4234/Famous_London_feuds.html
• http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/people,493,mayor-livingstone-threatens-to-sue-london-evening-paper,10608
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/so-was-it-the-standard-wot-won-it-or-just-a-sign-of-the-times-820745.html

Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Having nothing to do with this article whatever.- sinneed (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In a very real sense it doesn't matter WHY the author wrote, only that it was written in a wp:RS. The facts are supported by the subject, in interviews, but why beat a wp:dead horse? It already has too much coverage, adding his statement that he was a member just adds more. I understand you like the guy, great, I don't know him, I don't care about him. I care about Wikipedia, its rules, and the law. I will shoot wp:BLP violations against anyone, whether I know or like them or not, and no, that is not being overzealous... that stuff just doesn't belong here.

We *COULD* drop the individual's remarks entirely.

This would leave: "Dabinderjit Singh was once a member of the International Sikh Youth Federation. Singh resigned in the early 2000's, before the ISYF was listed as a terrorist organisation, and dissolved."

Or some such. Would that be better? - sinneed (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets get one thing straight. I don't know this guy, I don't care for this guy, I think the ISYF is an odious organisation, but this page is about Dabinderjit Singh and one chapter of his life is how he was smeared because of his relationship with Ken Livingtone. It is very important, because otherwise no one would have noticed this civil servant.--Sikh-history (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually... he receives more coverage for other things than the Mayorial campaign. While it may be true that that brought him to our attention, he is 1st in the press in 2001 and 2002.- sinneed (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"this page is about Dabinderjit Singh" - not any more it isn't. I moved the page to Sikh Federation (UK) which I think is a much more helpful focus, dealing with the organisation of which Singh is a leader. Disembrangler (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am happy that you have a new article to focus on, since it is more interesting to you.- sinneed (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Baah goalposts changed. I was just getting warmed up. I must confess, reading more and more about Gilligan, this fellow seems to confuse good journalism with personal vendettas. Very weird indeed.--Sikh-history (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

wp:censorship complaint

An editor has complained that I have censored this article. Please let me know what I should restore and either I will provide a hopefully-adequate explanation or I will restore the deleted content. My intent was to leave most of the BLP content in the BLP article. But it is very ok to duplicate it here. I look forward to knowing what I need either to fix or to explain.- sinneed (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Among other things you took the link with IYSF out of the lead, as well as related details from Singh. The link is prominently mentioned in many media reports and needs expanding - eg Gilligan had noted similarity of leadership. PS the Bezhti bit is now very overemphasised - too much detail. The previous simple reference sufficed; the rest should go into the play's article. Disembrangler (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so, moving information in the lead-in that is not covered in the body into the body is censorship, because it de-emphasizes it. That makes sense, but I can't agree. I will leave that in the body, and oppose its restoral to the lead, but will not move it back if it is moved again. I will restore the expansion I had made to the mention, though I still think it is too much.

On the Singh information, moving some of the Singh information out of this article and into the Singh article was censorship, but moving *ALL* the information out of the Singh article into this one was not. That makes sense, but I can't agree. I will restore all the the biographical information on the English-language spokesman to this article.- sinneed (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Among other things" - not really helpful there.- sinneed (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bio content restored, Behzti expansion reduced, ISYF links more prominently displayed in the body (still in the body... but again...while I object, I won't move it again... wp:lead seems to support this), ISYF linkage expanded.- sinneed (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. So. The Bio restore is gone. I agree but...I am confused. Still hoping for info on the "other things" that need fixing or explanation.- sinneed (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems OK now. Disembrangler (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)