Talk:Reuben Singh

Vandalising This Page
This page is currently a true reflection on the biography and history of Reuben Singh to date. It seems users are taking the liberty to paint a certain picture of Reuben Singh by deleting any facts that portray him in a positive manner. Reading the discussions and looking at the history it seems that a certain individual believes that disclosing any positive facts or achievements of Singh is detrimental to their own personal agenda. They then write on this discussion or edit notes that they believe it to be "vandalism" to report these positive facts even though they are reported with verifiable resources. They fail to take notice that these sources have been clearly referenced and instead try to infer that the facts are not referenced. This is now starting to get childish and if the certain individual was to take a closer look then no negative facts previously written have been deleted whilst our and other contributors have added their information to the article. Neutrality and factual reporting is the true basis of Wikipedia and contributors need to work together to ensure thisArc2466 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant and/or sycophantic text
Clearly written by Reuben or someone associated with him. Put the facts, not rose tinted glossy rubbish that sounds like a section from the Reuben Singh Fan Club. If he's done something good or successful, put it in here with links to verify it. Otherwise stop vandalising the page.

He has received hundreds of positive news articles, a misunderstood brilliant entrepreneur, people who have met him like him, an undisputable success, blah blah - this sort of nonsense has no place on Wikipedia.
 * I'm not sure how you can say that the current version of the article was "sounds like a section from the Reuben Singh Fan Club". It goes on at great length about his problems. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 21:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi ONUnicorn. I believe this was in reference to various previous versions where someone was vandalising the page, in the complete opposite way of Tellnolie - i.e. they removed all the unflattering sections and reworded the article to suit his image as a great success. ~ Tobin: 82.10.33.113 12:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was written by Tellnolie, and I was trying to encourage Tellnolie to bring his concerns here rather than vandalising. Sorry. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that any fan club nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. But it was must recognised that unbiased reporting is also a strength of Wikipedia and there is no place here for people to either reproduce items that look like a fan club listing or look like a personal vendetta. It must be noted that Vandalism on this biography has appeared in the past from both extremes but it is of the opinion now that the article is a true factual representation. Arc2466 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting whole sections
As per above users have been deleting whole sections that discredit Mr Singh. The more this page is vandalised the more I will take an interest in ensuring it's accuracy.

Only Banana yellow Bentley?
I don't know if the 'Banana' part is important but I've definitely seen more than one yellow Bentley in my life. And I hear Jamie Foxx owned one at some point too. TB: 82.10.39.234 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Turban and beard
All Sikh men wear turbans and beards, so is this really "notable"? --ukexpat 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Factual Information & Sourced
User 62.189.148.70 thank you for your input and I accept I may not be as learned as yourself on editing an article on Wikipedia and welcome your advise. I think that the current article has been given all the referenced sources by User Arc who has possibly added more verifiable sources than I may have should be acceptable to you and a highly referenced article. However I feel it is unfair not to report the most up-to-date information and as an independent journalist I feel it is only correct to portray a fair representation. I think reporting his bankruptcy is valid as long as one then reports his subsequent discharge from thisMiketridore (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced claims of growth and comeback?
User Miketridore, you have made several claims (as well as completely mangling the article up). You say Reuben Singh has been cleared and his business is growing. You do not however state any sources for this and there seems to be no evidence from searching on Google. While all your claims may be true, the sort of editing you have done is not welcomed with verfiable sources, so will be considered vandalism until you learn how to edit an article properly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.148.70 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalising this Biography
In the same manner as there is no place for irrelevant praise for a person on Wikipedia this is no place to continue to distort the facts of an individual which it seems some unknown person has done to work which has taken a great deal of time to research. Factual information is not to be deleted on Wikipedia just for some "one" person to defame an individual and not others see a true picture of both positive and negative aspects of, in this case, Reuben Singh's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketridore (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem comes from the fact you have completed twisted the article rather than adding these new so-called facts as an addendum. There is much evidence to support the article before you started making your many edits - you so far have provided NONE to prove this 'comeback' you have suggested. If he is indeed solvent, and his business is booming, then fine. But until there is some proof for this, it has to be considered vandalism. There is no 'hearsay' or 'opinion' on the article prior to your edits, simply links to credible news sources. Your edits seem to so far be in the category of hearsay. It's nothing to do with trying to make Reuben Singh look bad - Wikipedia requires sources for these kind of claims. Otherwise, you might as well say he's training to become an Astronaut - there's just as much proof at the moment (i.e. none). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.148.70 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User 62.19.148.70 I take your professional criticism on board and apologise if my previous tone was out of turn as I felt that all you were intending to do was to portray a one sided negative view. I understand your point of view and believe that I along with User:Arc have referenced all the contributions I or User:Arc have made. I have not intentional tried to twist anything but to balance the article to the true facts. I have reviewed the article and my contributions again, to make sure nothing is hearsay and that all sources are referred to. If you feel that there is anything you deem as hearsay or that no fact is referenced then please add this to this discussion or send me a note. Miketridore (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BKY

I have replaced the insolvency link with one that works but haven't yet found out who was the petitioning creditor as the article mentions Bank of Scotland and the Royal bank. It could be both for all I know.

For information the normal term of BKY is 12 months, everyone gets 12 months if they co operate with the Trustee. Prior conduct has no impact on term (but would result in a BRU if the behaviour was reckless or fraudulent).

-- I have removed the sentence 'After an investigation launched by the British government, Singh was cleared of any wrongdoing.' - I can find no evidence of a specific investigation being launched. The Official Receiver carries out a cursory investigation for each bankruptcy but this is not noteworthy - it is standard in any bankruptcy, and cannot be said to have been 'launched' by the British government. I think the inclusion of this sentence is misleading as it suggests that the British government had a specific interest in Singh's bankruptcy. If anyone can produce a reference to any 'British government investigation' then by all means add the sentence back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.34.252 (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I note the last 2 edits have been removed without any explanation on here. I supplied a fuller extract of the quotation - rather than the few words in the current version which simply states that Singh is a liar. Not sure how that helps us to understand him at all. johnnybriggs (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blatant sanitizing
There is clear manipulation of this article to remove negative stories about Mr Singh. His reason for notoriety is that he became widely known for business success which turned out to be false, when his companies were sold for token sums or liquidated. He was declared bankrupt and called a 'fantasist and a liar' by the judge. All this information has been gradually removed from the article, which now portrays him as a successful businessman and government advisor.

A few days later and the entry has been edited to remove the main reason for Mr Singh's notoriety (his exposure as a business fraud). Daveroberts82 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that using hearsay tabliod press style captions is hardly complimentary of Wikipedia and the people that contribute to it. There words like fraud and fraudlent should not be used lightly until and unless this has been proven. Nothing and no one has proved fraud when it comes to this individual so far on Wikipedia. Our searches have also come up negative and therefore to just portray a living individual as something he is not is far from fair or has no place on Wikipedia.

Cleanup long overdue
This entry, to put it bluntly, is a mess. Far too much irrelevant, outdated information. The guy has been out of the public eye for over 5 years now. Suggest a much simplified version which covers the basic facts instead of all this waffle. Anyone up for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.149.51 (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Reuben Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115023706/http://www.timebank.org.uk:80/mediacentre/press_release_details.php?id=49 to http://www.timebank.org.uk/mediacentre/press_release_details.php?id=49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100428162357/http://www.timebank.org.uk:80/mediacentre/press_release_details.php?id=49 to http://www.timebank.org.uk/mediacentre/press_release_details.php?id=49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050228020707/http://www.indianembassy.ru:80/docs-htm/en/en_05_03_t1612_2002.htm to http://www.indianembassy.ru/docs-htm/en/en_05_03_t1612_2002.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Reuben Singh. 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:
 * Added tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102071605/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/uk/this_britain/article3112814.ece#2007-10-31T00:00:01-00:00 to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3112814.ece

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reuben Singh. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/peerreview.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808100517/http://www.sathnam.com/Features/71/reuben-singh to http://www.sathnam.com/Features/71/reuben-singh
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201172854/http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/staffStudentsAndAlumni/newsandviews/02-12-2002.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/staffStudentsAndAlumni/newsandviews/02-12-2002.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925200126/http://www.ameinfo.com/60759.html to http://www.ameinfo.com/60759.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed reference 8, " "The art of starting a business". The Independent. Retrieved 1 October 2018." - claims it's a source for Singh advocating for National Living Wage, but it's an article from 20 years ago that doesn't mention NLW at all - it'd be impressive considering NLW was only announced in 2015.

Rumjar123 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Rumjar