Talk:Shahid Malik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whole parliament and Primeminister will be a muslim in 30 years?[edit]

This is what Shahid Malik said in speech.Would like to see this included in the webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.37.170 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion[edit]

This article reads as if it had been written by the subject himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.152.172 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It most probably was - and is no doubt edited ferociously if anyone dares to put any facts up that show him in a less than favourable light. 86.138.209.160 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, or a supporter. I have edited to cut the hagiographic stuff. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11/12 January. This was indeed a promo, self-congratulating text and phrases like "to the influential Home Affairs Select Committee" are taken straight from the subjects own website. (ps. arent all Select Committees influential? after all, they help determine changes in the national law). I have also added other information (which the author/subject) did not put in before such as the incident of the police attack which resulted in the subject appearing all over the national press. I have also extended the entry to include activities, as the original page read more like a CV of achievements ("i was the first person to do this and taht, the first non-white, the first muslim etc et).

I may have now taken it too far, but some of the new material may need additional sources to be cited and some text may need to adjusted for neutrality to get the right balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.112.202 (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14 Jan 2010 The subject or his supporter have removed all the newly inserted information, rather than editing any alleged inaccuracies. They have reverted the entry back to its original CV ("i am the first muslim this and that") format.

I'll try again, and ask anyone who has issues to discuss them here first. --92.40.202.47 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing discussion as to the obvious pro-Malik bias (specifically a repetitive censorship of criticism regarding expenses as covered by The Telegraph) along with numerous banned sockpuppets who have edited this article I have nominated it for review under WP:NPOV. MrEarlGray (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

This page needs a photo to be found Matthewfelgate 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? [1] Slevdi 11:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might get a photo of him because my mum's meeting him today Murrayskull —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murayskull (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slander[edit]

Someone obligingly altered the first sentence to "Shahid Malik is a professional criminal." This has now been removed. The article is likely to see more attack in the next few days - I wonder if Wiki should limit editing for this period. D, Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.155.36 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Down and Inquiry[edit]

It's not clear to me whether standing-down is different to stepping to one side. Also, while I've changed the inquiry from expenses to breaches of the ministerial, I don't know if there is also an inquiry into his expenses. --86.137.233.223 (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 24[edit]

As of July 24 this article is in need of a serious cleanup. Large passages undoubtedly violate BLP, little of this is neutral, and most of it looks like a probable copyvio. There's an argument to be made for blanking the page and starting anew. 96.255.252.189 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of problems[edit]

Lots of problems with this article, too many for me to sort out.

  • Surely the section on Parliamentary Career should mention the Dewsbury election that Malik did actually win - OK I will fix this one.
  • There was a major edit by Bigdaddy1981 which removed 90% of the previous article - good move as it mostly read like self congratulatory puff lifted from local party constituency website, and as Bigdaddy1981 it large contravened BLP. However, there was some good stuff there that would be worth reinstating if it can be properly sourced. The 'Best Maiden Speech of the Parliament' award for example.
  • There was a major edit by an anon which completely transforms the tone in the section on expenses scandals. Whilst its good that it introduces a counter perspective, it is bad in that it completely whitewashes the issue over beneficial rents. Hiding that Malik was let off by the government enquiry only because without any receipts they couldn't prove the rent issue one way or the other. And unfortunately, the whole edit is pretty much a copyvio from the Guardian article cited as a reference.

-- Solipsist (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point about possible copyvio from Guardian article appears to be a valid point. Expenses section needs to be edited to summarise that article and the points it makes, as well as from Telepgrah. Nontheless, the points are worthy of being made here as it counter-balances the previous entry that sought to suggest the subject was 'cleared' and there were no issues of concern. --92.40.202.47 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Community[edit]

I have concerns about this section and have tagged it as follows: {{Essay-entry}}, {{Unreferenced section}}, {{criticism-section}}.

These tags should remain until all issues are satisfactorily resolved. Leaky Caldron 21:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valid references have been inserted and the section re-written to increase neutrality. --92.40.202.47 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like impartial editors to look at this. Your sock account has made similar smear attacks to another article at the same time, namely Andrew Robathan. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Here's my read-through (of revision 337893740):

  • "His Dewsbury constituency houses the home of the lead 7/7 bomber, Mohammed Siddique Khan involved in the terrorist atrocities in London in July 2005." - if this influenced Malik or there's some link, it should be explained. Otherwise it's just a bit of trivia. I'm not sure it's important enough to be in the lead section.
  • "In June 2001, Malik first hit the national media headlines as a Labour party member when a picture of his face covered in blood was shown on TV and newspapers following civil riots in Burnley" - the wording there is very inflammatory. "covered in blood" doesn't say anything about how or why, or give any context, or say about Malik's behaviour.
  • Statements like "signed an open letter to the Prime Minister..." could do with references. In that case, it should be fairly easy - it's an open letter.
  • The three paragraphs covering the text "Sir Philip Mawer's report ran into 71-pages ... say he was charged." have no source and should - they must be sourced or removed. It looks like it might be directly from the report (so, OR) - multiple secondary sources are preferable.
  • Some of the verbiage could be removed. The text "With many questions still remaining over Mr Malik's expense claims," could be removed to leave just the facts in the remaining text: "on 16 June 2009, John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, decided to launch a formal inquiry into Mr Malik’s expenses claims."
  • Claims like "Malik has relatively strained relations with leading umbrella organisation" need a source.
  • blogs.salaam.co.uk. Blogs are normally not reliable sources. In this case, this is just the opinion of some random bloke on the internet.
  • Large block quotes always make me nervous, even from a Lord. We can often get the point from a shorter quote, without filling up a whole load of space with one person's POV.

I think finding more sources (and rewording things to match the sources as we add them) will go a long way towards fixing it. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of issues[edit]

Still lots of issues with this page. It is largely incomplete/inadequate and lots of attacks mainly from IPs. Some fixes today but still needs more.

  • Burnley riots - suggest this forms a subsection within 'Pre Parliamentary career', renaming that section 'Early life and career' or something, which is more consistent with other MP pages.
  • Dullus airport - again this should maybe be a subsection. It is useful info and should be in (like the riots) but it ruins the flow of of the 'Parliamentary career' section which keeps getting longer and longer.
  • NEC/previous selection contests - should this be in the pre or in the parliamentary section? Generally it's messy and the chronology isn't always clear through the pre and the parliamentary sections.
  • Expenses scandal - I have reinstated the safe version of this - it constantly gets attacked. suggest this is kept to the bare facts, more or less as it is now. There is confusion as it seems there is one outstanding investigation but in two others Malik has been cleared.

--Bigbaddaddy (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better[edit]

Has been tidied up over the past few months and several citations added. Still one or two minor issues but most of the rubbish has gone. Suggest removing disputed neutrality status etc.

--Bigbaddaddy (talk) 16:12, 02 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses?[edit]

Come on, why is there nothing about his expenses claims in here? He is notable as being the MP who ran up the highest claims of any Member of Parliament, and frequently had claims rejected as being unacceptable even BEFORE the expenses scandal, not to mention the whole second home issue, widely publicised in the media (just google his name to see any number of notable sources)

The current tone of the article is self-congratulatory and self-promoting for the notable Mr Malik... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this concern. The tone of the article is inappropriate right from the opening paragraph which simply talks about voting patterns in the constituency as an excuse for his defeat rather than the actual subject of the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just taking a look through the history of the article, other controversial issues have also been removed so I'm going to add an POV tag.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are straight forward. Malik did not hit the media for his expenses but an alleged breach of the ministerial code - he was cleared of this. He did hit the headlines for a serious alleged breach of expenses rules subsequently, however, once more he was cleared. All this is in the wiki piece on Malik. Again Dewsbury was subject to the most severe boundary change in West Yorkshire, apart from Normanton- this is an absolute key fact. Whether one likes an individual or not is not relevant but the facts are hence removal of the POV tag is justifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVIDBrave (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough and there is a misunderstanding though I did explain it reasonably well. The point I am seconding is that the "tone of the article is self-congratulatory and self-promoting". This phrase sums up the problem perfectly, for example having a whole section dedicated him him being the parliamentary pool champion is ridiculous and almost beyond belief. I haven't fully reviewed the section on expenses and have no comments either way on that but that's just one small part of the article. The issue is that some very biased editing has clearly occurred breaching NPOV guidelines not just in relation to the content that exists at present but also controversies being removed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was I thought quite clear. You said you ‘second this concern’ referring to the original concern, and you added something about voting patterns. The concern you seconded focused mainly on expenses and I dealt with this. Your personal concern dealt as I’ve stated talked about voting patterns and I dealt with this directly. Now you say your main focus was also on it being ‘self congratulatory’ and ‘controversies being removed’. You highlight the pool champion – but this appears to be factual and was covered in the national press. With respect to controversies being removed can you please state which controversy you feel should be re-added in order for you to feel it is balanced in your view. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVIDBrave (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who aren't' aware DAVIDBrave is now banned from Wikipedia as the account was a sockpuppet of Truesayer--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of problems with the article[edit]

For the benefit of those who don't appreciate the scale of the problem here's a list of the issues I've identified so far:

  • Undue focus on boundary changes in introduction with the implication they are the only reason he lost. This section is supposed to be a summary of the article rather than focusing on just one issue in such great detail.
  • Inaccuracies in expenses section, no coverage of the scale of his claims and repayment amount given is 10 times less than reality.
  • Undue focus on pool playing and implication he voluntarily donated prize money to charity when he was obliged to do so.
  • A lack of balance in some sections, there's a tendency to only ever quote Malik and play down any controversy rather than covering all views equally.
  • Obvious bias in places where content isn't in keeping with sources. For example all sources clearly state that Malik stood down as Justice Minister, whereas POV language is used here wrongly suggesting he merely stepped to "one side".
  • Some controversies deleted.

Until such issues are resolved tags need to remain in place informing editors and readers of the issue. Also please note these are not just my "personal" concerns. Four different editors so far have agreed that there are NPOV breaches--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the question about pool playing being part of the personal life section here is the reasoning. Malik is not a professional pool player and it has not been any part of his remit within politics to play pool. I'm sure he's very good at playing pool but it is clearly a hobby and something he does voluntarily. Hobbies generally are placed in the "personal life" section. Furthermore it breaches the Wikipedia WP:UNDUE policy to have a heading dedicated to this topic because is not a notable competition - only a brief mention of the issue is warranted no matter how many times he wins.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shakehandsman objectivity?[edit]

I wrote a couple of days ago: “It seems pretty fair since changes - I'm surprised at shakehandmans obsession with minority Labour MPs (Women, Jews and Muslims). If he is so concerned about bias perhaps he can correct the 600 plus other MPs to show consistency across the board! Sorry I forgot, gays as well. This is Shakehandsman most recent list of editing choices: Diane Abbott (black woman) Shahid Malik (Muslim) Sue Nye (Jew) Denis Macshane (Jew) Chris Bryant (Gay) Ben Bradshaw (Gay) Celia Barlow (Woman) -a theme emerges!” Shakehandsman has taken it very personal and resulted in constant reverts which are unjustifiable. For example, he deleted a primary and neutral source and replaced it with a dubious secondary source – his argument: “Better to use secondary source here rather than a primary one.” I think this logic sums up shakehandsman and his edits. He is in warring mood contrary to the values of Wikipedia. Incidentally I have just checked his last 500 contributions and following my criticism yesterday for the first time he edited two Lib/Dem MPs - 2 out of 500 edits to Lib/Dems and none to the Tories....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truesayer (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm sick of this nonsense now. Firstly you've remove all the white male MPs in between that supposed "list" of edits and if you actually examine the content the only "theme" is that I was categorising all the politicians who had all worked for the BBC, that's the common link there and the only reason for the edits. There si aboslutely no list of my edits that si in the order you describe and never has been at any time in my years here. I've edited article for politicians from all parties and COI party activists from across the board have attacked me in the same way you are doing. I strongly suggest you retract your false allegations, apologise and strike through all the false allegations as your sockpupettry already means you're walking on thin ice here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also FYI Mr MacShane is a Roman Catholic so you've breached Wikipedia rules at least twice there. You need to remove that false statement immediately because adding false information about Living persons is a serious breach of Wikipedia rules--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear shakehandsman - I mentioned Chris Bryant who is gay but I don't believe he ever worked for the BBC. Like wise Shahid Malik is Muslim but I don't think he worked for the BBC. I mentioned Sue Nye and Celia Barlow neither of whom I believe worked for the BBC etc. hence, your claim that they all worked for the BBC is false and an out and out lie - a very clear breach of wiki rules. With respect to Denis Macshane he is a high profile campaigner against anti-semitism and that commands my respect - if he is not jewish then I am wrong but someone who hated jews would logically hate him. As for sockpuppetry I think you'll find that you're wrong. FINALLY you removed some of my editing claiming, and I quote: "revert edits by Truesayer which had made all headings bold. No Wikipedia articles ever use bold text for headings." I tested your statement of 'absolute fact' by someone who frankly operates as if he owns wikipedia - the first name I wikipediad was David Miliband and would you believe that he had no less than 9 headings in bold. You have broken wiki rules by stating something which was blatantly untrue again in a sad bid to justify a rather petty and meaningless piece of editing. For the record I have no proof that you are homophobic, Islamaphobic, anti-semitic or sexist - however, in the last 500 of your contributions that I have seen these groups are grossly over-represented. It could just be a coincidence and it may me nothing but protesting too loud with the kind of facts that I've highlighted will not help your cause and neither will trying to subtly bully me all the time. If you want to develop a working relationship based on consensus, trust and good faith then I am happy to meet you half way - i have no desire to get into a war with you. Thanks for listening. truesayer--Truesayer (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bryant - Head of European Affairs for the BBC from 1998.[2], Celia Barlow - home news editor at the BBC [3] and even met her husband there who also stood for election for Labour. Phil Woolas, produced Newsnight [4] Denis MacShane - BBC radio newsreader/presenter (got sacked)[5], Ben Bradshaw - BBC radio (worked for World at One program)[6], Mike Hancock - BBC magazines[7], Sue Nye's link is well known as she got married to the Chairman [8], Diane Abbott - BBC Daily Politics show +others [9], Jackie Ashley - BBC journalist [10], James Purnell - BBC corporate[11]. Shahid is not linked to the BBC but then that wasn't part of that series of edits was it? I've issued your final warning on your talk page regarding your smears and attacks. Please stop this right now, strike-through all the false accusations and apologise. Also I'd ask once again you strike through your false statement about MacShane --Shakehandsman (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept based on the information you provided that two of the four people I mentioned did as you stated work for the BBC and I thank you for that information. Hence, we were both 50% accurate. However, I note that you have not sought to re-state your claim: “No Wikipedia articles ever use bold text for headings” which was a false statement or at best 100% inaccurate (assuming it was stated in good faith). With respect to Macshane you state that he is Roman Catholic – I stated otherwise in good faith and if you’re correct, then I may indeed have been inaccurate but importantly it was not malicious or defamatory and I note you have helpfully four days ago put Macshane’s religion on his wiki entry. It states in the wiki guidance that editors can sometimes over-react and if on my part you feel I have then I am happy to apologise. --Truesayer (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely failed to understand how Wikipedia works. People are entitled to edit whichever articles they wish and you should be assuming good faith in relation to people's editing. The edits were about as innocuous as one can get, I was simply adding people to categories based on content already in the article. Rather than examine the content of these edits and provide evidence to back up any of your claims you've made the most terrible bad faith serious false accusations falsely suggesting racism and anti-semitism not to mention bullying. Further still, strangely for someone supposedly so keen on accuracy you've also faked the list of "most recent editing choices" by ommitting every single white male in between the various edits. This is quite possibly the worst smear I've ever been subjected to in all my years here. Administrators have already permanently deleted all traces one of your edits on this matter from the history of this article, something that only usually happens for serious breaches. Contrary to your claims people such as myself have all been very lenient and patient with regard to your troublesome editing of this article and your sockpuppetry and attempted to explain Wikipedia rules to you. I'm pleased you admit you have absolutely no proof to back up any of your claims, I strongly suggest you therefore strike through and fully retract all your false accusations. Please do not make any accusations about editors in future without providing evidence. This is how to strike through text --Shakehandsman (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits[edit]

I came over from the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I deleted the following material, which appears to me to be a WP:COATRACK:

Dewsbury Constituency Boundary Changes

The Boundary Commission for England imposed severe boundary changes on the Dewsbury constituency which took it back to the boundary they imposed in 1983. At the 83' general election, Conservative candidate John Whitfield won the Dewsbury seat from Labour. In 2010 history repeated itself. The boundary commission changes brought 26 traditionally Conservative villages from Denby Dale and Kirkburton (all having Conservative councillors) into the Dewsbury constituency in 2010. In addition, Dewsbury lost the working class market town of Heckmondwike whose councillors were all Labour. The net political effect meant that although the town of Dewsbury itself voted Labour at the 2010 general election, the non-dewsbury towns and villages, which following the boundary changes now outnumber the population of the town of Dewsbury, voted predominantly Conservative. The other main benefit for the Conservatives was that the voter turnout rate in the Conservative villages was up to 75%, while in the Dewsbury wards was as low as 63%.[1][2][3]

The role of boundary changes are appropriately mentioned and given proper weight in the lede and further down in the article. This lengthy section at the top is unnecessary and inappropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also just edited the material about the individual who pled guilty to sending the racist email, deleting his name, shortening the content per WP:WEIGHT and adding a source. I removed his name per WP:BLP as he is not otherwise notable except for the one event and most ghits on his name come here or to mirrors. Also, please note that WP:PROFANITY does not favor use of asterisks, but I preserved them because that's how the matter had been reported in the newspaper cited.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Early Politics" section, I deleted some WP:WEASEL occurrences of "controversial", and also a statement that the nomination process was changed, which was not supported by the source. In the following section, I deleted the adjective "convincingly" before "defeated" which is classic personal opinion not belonging in a Wikipedia article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I again deleted the boundary change para at the top of the article. It just doesn't belong in a bio--no attempt is even made to relate it to the subject, it literally looks like some content which got in by accident. Instead, I added the ref to the boundary change article, and a quote about 26,000 Tories, further down when it belongs. Please don't keep reinserting this material at the top, before his early life and the rest of his bio; it doesn't make any sense there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful explanation - it makes sense and I agree with your logic. Truesayer (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] 


 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.130.191 (talk)

References

  1. ^ "UK Polling Report - Dewsbury". Retrieved 25 June 2010.
  2. ^ "General election 2010: Could boundary changes swing the election?". Huddersfield Examiner. Trinity Mirror North West & North Wales Limited. 25 March 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2010.
  3. ^ "DEWSBURY: Tories claim Labour Minister's scalp after boundary changes". Yorkshire Post. Johnston Press Digital Publishing. 10 May 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2010.

Another sockpuppet[edit]

Thanks to all those who reverted the edits by Wikistraight. I initiated an SPI given the striking similarities with previous editors and it was indeed another sockpuppet of Truesayer. Here is the investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truesayer. Can we perhaps get some sort of page protection to stop this happening in future? --Shakehandsman (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really much available, apart from full protection, as semi-protection will allow editing once a user is autoconfirmed. Keith D (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I suppose there aren't any other options. Perhaps just enable that for say a few weeks to prevent any problems in the short term? --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We really need page protection now what with this IP vandalism. Also, the latest sockpuppet I've uncovered to go with Truesayer, Wikistraight and DavidBrave is Bigbaddaddy. Note how their edits go back some considerable period of time. I've also initiated SPIs for the various Orange IPs that have appeared. Here's the SPI page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truesayer and here's all the archives Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truesayer/Archive.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015[edit]

Complete removal of the section on 'Sexiest/Most Fanciable Member of Parliament'.

This is a blatant lie, Mr. Malik was nominated by his secretary via a letter as a publicity stunt to Sky News' political editor Adamn Boulton, not by the general public. Mr. Malik was not 'regularly voted as one of the top five sexiest male MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament'. Nor was he 'regularly topped the poll as the sexiest Labour MP'. He was simply nominated, aka, included in the listings.

The entire article sounds as if it were written by himself in attempt to goad ones hubris and ego. The source is also a blog, blogs are not reputable sources of information, they are simply an individuals private opinion.


"Sexiest/Most Fanciable Member of Parliament Shahid Malik was regularly voted as one of the top five sexiest male MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament. In the Sky News poll, which annually conducts its poll of the 650 Members of Parliament, he regularly topped the poll as the sexiest Labour MP." TruthfulResident (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Shahid Malik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shahid Malik. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shahid Malik. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shahid Malik. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Voted one of the sexiest Members of Parliament[edit]

  • The source to this claim states otherwise, nor is such 'information' warranted. It is blatant self-aggrandizing narcissism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEarlGray (talk • contribs) 09:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken to removing this information once again, because such comments are unbefitting of the nature of this article as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

BNP Votes[edit]

A claim stating The BNP also polled their highest number of votes in the country in Dewsbury, receiving over 5,000 votes is included in the opening section. What relevance do votes for the British National Party have to do with this article? MrEarlGray (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Once again, British National Party (BNP) voting figures in Dewsbury hold no relevance to Malik's article. This figure and statement acts only to propagate a political message of victory, which is not what Wikipedia is for. MrEarlGray (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motives of editor and history of negative changes to Muslim related articles[edit]

[Redacted personal attack Fences&Windows 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)][reply]

He replaced Baroness Warsi as the first notable person from Savile town in the Savile Town article with a convicted terrorist from Savile Town and pushed her down making the terrorist top. To [Redacted personal attack Fences&Windows 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)] and deny Baroness Warsi, a Muslim Peer, the prominence she deserves.[reply]

He removed the photo of a mosque from the Savile Town article [Redacted personal attack Fences&Windows 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)][reply]

He deliberately did a fake edit to mislead people regarding a documentary on Savile Town [Redacted personal attack Fences&Windows 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)]. His selective edit stated unequivocally “used eyewitness accounts to suggest that at least in the eyes of residents the area does not feel safe”. The element that he cut from the full actual quote went on to state “although it was unclear whether the witness was referring to Savile Town or nearby Ravensthorpe”. Ravensthorpe was a much more mixed area but he decided to edit it to perpetuate his own racially biased world view. He removed the section entitled 'Voted one of the sexiest Members of Parliament' over a year ago stating "source attributed made no such reference" even though it had been there for 12 years and the link expired over-time and so it was re-inserted. 13 months later this month he removed it because in his words ``irrelevant for Wikipedia”.[reply]

He also carried out other vandalism and fake news which was corrected last year on the “shahid malik” article.

He also removed the fact that the BNP got their highest votes ever in the UK in the 2005 general election in Dewsbury because he stated it was “irreverent information”.

The BNP polling the highest vote in UK history at the same time as the UK’s first British-born Muslim MP is elected in the same constituency is of course worthy of note and that’s why it has been there for 15 years.

These changes have been rectified. This is the autobiography of a living person and it is semi-protected - please respect this and I hope some senior editors will keep their eye on both the Savile Town and Shahid Malik articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josibald (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You alright, chap? Normally I'd not engage with such matters on a talk page as it's not the proper channels to do so. However, for posterity, I'll address your concerns for others to impartially consider:
* On Baroness Warsi: The listing of notable people is in alphabetical order (surname) rather than hierarchical.
* On The Mosque photo: This was removed due to a lack of prominence in the article, this was later reinstated once it was made relevant. It's still there.
* The Savile Town edit: This wasn't by my hand, you are attributing edits to other people than myself.
* Savile Town: According to the the 2011 census recorded a 93% Asian Muslim population.
* The edit: "...used eyewitness accounts..." was not written by my hand.
* On 'one of the sexiest member of parliament: I removed a link which was (at the time) unsubstantiated due to it being expired. It also falls under "WP:NOTEVERYTHING (soapbox for showcasing & public relations)". Furthermore, he was not the (#1) sexiest, he was nominated. If he was the winning vote, then perhaps it's notable to a living person's biography.
* Please clarify what "fake news" I have spread, you have still not explained this claim.
* BNP voting statistics are of irrelevance to Malik as he is was a Labour MP, not a member of the British National Party. No other MP page makes references of such matters.
* If any of my edits are in error I apologize to those who embark upon correcting them.
* To put on my own tinfoil hat: it is in my view your zealous edits may be that of a sockpuppet or potentially Malik himself, mainly because the removal of "voted one of the sexiest members of Parliament" seems to be an especially contentious hill to die upon; something which I suspect only a concerned party would take offense to. It is quite strange to see such extremely hostile attacks over such a trifling matter and to attempt a, what can only be coined 'political-esque' character assassination. MrEarlGray (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my criticism and I do not wish to go into countering everything you have said at this stage ... those that are interested can read my comments, your response and do their research and draw their conclusions.

Here we deal with one issue - you do not believe the fact that the BNP got its highest vote in its history at the 2005 General election against Malik is worthy of note because you say Malik is not a member of the BNP. To most people they would think your logic is unintelligible. It is of course of huge significance after all it was a historic first. Arguments that it should not be there because Malik is not a member of the BNP simply have no logic to challenge - they just don’t. Please do explain why you put this position forward because I must be missing something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotherblog (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr EarlGrey’s Belief that highest BNP vote in UK History, against Malik in Dewsbury is not worthy of mention and hence 15 years later he deletes it![edit]

Here we deal with one issue - Mr EarlGrey does not believe the fact that the BNP got its highest vote in UK history at the 2005 General election in Dewsbury against Malik is worthy of note because he states that Malik is not a member of the BNP. Everyone I have spoken to states that this logic is not something they would share and hence the editing by Mr EarlGrey is out of order. The BNP vote they agree is of huge significance after all it was a historic first, passing 5,000 votes. Arguments that it should not be there because Malik is not a member of the BNP simply have no logic to challenge - they just don’t. I welcome Mr EarlGrey explaining why he put his position forward because I would genuinely wish to understand his perspective because at the moment I don’t and neither does anyone I know? If he decides not to explain himself then the edit must be reverted - one person cannot dictate the contents of an article based on his desire to have it his way - there has to be a reasonable explanation and I await one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotherblog (talk • contribs) 00:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello /u/Brotherblog. To once again address your concerns.
  • Please refrain from making personal attacks on article pages. This is basic Wikipedia TOS.
  • A statement may languish on Wikipedia for many years, but this does not equate to sound reasoning for it to stay. Articles are subject to edits after decades, which is especially common in articles of trivial importance such as this one.
  • "Everyone I have spoken to states that this logic is not something they would share" <- Please outline who 'everyone' is. Wikipedia is not a place for anecdotal evidence; what you hear or talk about does not equate to evidenced truth. There is only a note of yourself and /u/Josibald having this discussion. (An investigation has been opened regarding a /u/Josibald being a potential sockpuppet account, as the account was created soon after my initial edit and has primarily focused on supporting your own edits. You also signed the last talk page edit with "I stand by my criticism" despite /u/Josibald writing said criticism).
  • As Malik is not a member of the British National Party I do not believe the number of votes for a competing failed electoral attempt holds relevance to this article. No other articles of similar topics contain this information. If it were relevant, it would be necessary to add statistics for the Conservative Party, The Green Party, all independent parties, etc... in the name of balance.
  • In previous edits, you have used political rhetoric to suggest Malik was 'fighting' the BNP which is untrue; he was standing for election like all other parties. I further believe the amount of counter votes is unnecessary as to claim it is of significance acts only as a political 'victory symbol' against a competing party, which is against Wikipedia's TOS as per WP:ADVOCACY.
  • ...one person cannot dictate the contents of an article based on his desire to have it his way <- You have been editing and written vast swathes of this article since 30 June 2013. You have also removed public-domain negative criticism of Malik in 2013, 2014, 2015 and in 2020. In comparison I have made three minor edits removing what I see to be irrelevant or unsourced information beginning in 2019.
  • Finally, you are insistent on the inclusion of Malik being 'Voted one of the sexiest Members of Parliament. I do not believe this holds relevance as; he was neither the #1 winner nor is Wikipedia a place for everything per WP:NOTEVERYTHING (soapbox for showcasing & public relations). In my view, including this information is either a PR attempt or blatant self-aggrandizing narcissism. I also find it perplexing you have also added and defended this entry on several of Malik's peers and close friends.
Given that I have "explained myself" as you requested, I shall revert the article back to my previous edits. Please do not change this article further unless you are able to provide adequate sources abiding by Wikipedia's TOS to support inclusion. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of this article - WP:NPOV[edit]

I would suggest opening an review to the neutrality of the entirety of this article given the myriad of complaints of pro-Malik material discussed on this talk page.

There is a specific lack of focus of Malik's 'unanswered questions' regarding his expenses claims and questionable rental agreements (such as claiming £66,000 for a property rented at less than £100 per week and numerous vanity item claims) [1]

Please be aware that there have been numerous (now banned) sockpuppets who have tried to sway the article one way or the other. MrEarlGray (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the section on "International Development Minister" I note there are numerous claims of "first person to / only person to" statements which reads quite similar to a PR statement. Please consider this for any NPOV discussion. MrEarlGray (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robert, Winnet. "Shahid Malik returns to Government with questions unanswered". The Telegraph. Retrieved 23 December 2020.

False information and questionable editing[edit]

[Redacted personal attack Fences&Windows 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)][reply]

The evidence which is testament to his ability to invent facts and provide damaging misinformation is the example of 2019 which he hopes no-one will notice where he wrote: 

“After the Derek Conway scandal, Malik was forced to declare that he had employed his father in the MP’s office at a rate of between £13,566 to £25,195 per annum, pro rata, from the taxpayer funded MP's staffing allowance.” This was a completely false and fictitious assertion and placed as a fact in order to damage Malik’s reputation. MEG has made this up - the truth was that Malik was not “forced to declare” anything as the Parliamentary administration printed these details of every MP at the same time.  Secondly, MEG’s contemptuous attempt to connect Malik to Conway was as devious as it was fake, in truth there was no connection. Conway had been found guilty of saying both his son worked for him and he paid them, including pension contribution however, investigations concluded that they did not work for him as he stated and he was forced to pay back their, had the whip removed and was not allowed to stand for the Party at the General election.

In Malik’s case there was not even an accusation that he had done anything wrong with bis father as an employee as over 100 other MPs had relatives working for them. Hence, the connecting by MEG of Malik and Conway had zero relevance other than to deliberately cause damage by association. [Redacted personal attack Fences&Windows 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josibald (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josibald, just because someone has made an edit in error does not mean it was maliciously made. The quote you have provided above was removed by yourself and again by your potential sockpuppet account, Brotherblog. What is strange however is that since the 2019 edit stating Malik employed his father was made, the source seems to have been subject to a takedown request. Thankfully, the Wayback Machine exists and copies of the article can still be read reporting the employment of Malik's father.
Furthermore, as you seem to be saying "this isn't true!" without providing sources stating otherwise this demonstrates a supposed intimate knowledge of the subject. Logic dictates this is a COI. Much like your previous sockpuppets which have edited this article to promote Malik have been banned many times over the years, your continued defense of portraying this article in a purely promotional light is ranging on the levels of narcissism, leaving me to suspect you are Mr. Malik himself. If this is the case, please abide by the rules outlined in Wikipedia's TOS that one is not allowed to edit their own article. The branding of everyone who edits this article as being a 'racist' is childish and akin to projection at this point. You may want to spend some time offline. If not, here's the BBC report on the expenses scandal to jog your memory and another source from The Press stating Malik being the only person in the country to employ his father. MrEarlGray (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahid_Malik&oldid=1209819971"