Talk:Reuben Singh

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Citations

Through bickering between what appears to be the subject (or someone close to them) and a third party with a grudge, this article appears to be a horrible mess.

Just a few points:

- Linking to Reuben singh's own webpage is NOT an indication of the businesses success. - Of course the business was bought for £1 due to debts - nothing was suggested otherwise. - He was NOT 'honoured' by the Queen at all. That is a highly misleading implication! - The insolvency page link does not work.

There is nothing wrong with updating this page to balance the rather poor image the subject suffered in recent times, but unfortunately these edits, no matter how well meaning, are insufficient. Claiming it is a 'true' reflection is meaningless without citations. All the references added so far are from pre-2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos264 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a serious problem with the grammar here. In the haste to put the subject in a better light, there is some shockingly bad English in evidence.

The main question that should be asked is this : Why would anyone believe these sweeping edits, when there is not a shred of evidence to support it? We have to go with what's tangible here. Thanos264 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the contributors to the article. As an independent third party I have verified all the contributions I have added. I am currently working on an article on the subject (and therefore whilst not being close to the subject do know much about him) but felt compelled to write further to making my own investigations. I think the two most significant facts you are questioning are ones that both have supporting written evidence to support the fact. Many articles on line has cited the Honour which you have deleted from the article.

1. Discharge - The courts discharged Reuben Singh on 19th October 2008 (case 400 of 2007) under Rule 6.220. This is evidenced by the court records that have been obtained with a copy of the discharge certificate.

2. The Honour bestowed on him by the Queen - On 13th October 2003 The Queen honoured a number of individuals as "Pioneer's To the Life of the Nation". The Queen recognised these individuals for their contribution to Britain. Again documents from Buckingham Palace of the event on 13th October 2003 prove this.Miketridore (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested to see the article you end up publishing. You must however realise that to suggest someone is 'honoured' by the Queen gives the impression of a knighthood or order of the empire. There are better ways to put it. Please provide more evidence of this court discharge - as far as I can tell this info is not readily available online (and yes, I did look). Please note that I have no problem with Reuben Singh being a great success nor that it be written on here. But as an individual who is known for self publicity and the well known details of the RBS case, caution must be exercised when these largely uncited and seemingly favourable sweeping edits take place. Thanos264 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you have not misconstrued my critisism as a discouragment from contributing to this piece, and see it more as a helpful pointer. Perhaps I have reacted in a kneejerk fashion at what did seem to be a very dismissive edit of other people's previous contributions. I must say -t whatever Singhs current status (and I do hope this article will eventually become a well formed and collaborative piece), he still has people talking! Thanks for taking the time to back up your edits and I hope you can use your information to give an honest representation. Thanos264 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your guidance and as a novice contributor on Wikipedia I thank you for the things you have said. I am actually encouraged more now to take part in contributing and agree that I think as a fan of Reuben Singh (whom I have yet to meet and interview) I was disturbed about the over negative taint given to a version of the article I saw some weeks ago. I would agree in hindsight that my contributions may have been in hast but the facts have been verified. It is interesting to note that the court discharge is not available online and perhaps either we find a way of uploading it or faxing it to Wikipedia? I agree that the article needs to be rewritten but would not like to put myself forward for this. Neutrality and impartiality has to be maintained though.

Much evidence has been found regarding the fact that the Queen "recognised" him for his contribution to the "Life of the Nation" and I agree that the word "honoured" which has been used by several journalists may give reason to believe it was an actual "honour". The word recognised or recognition may be more appropriate. I wait to read the article once it has been rewritten by a more neutral and impartial contributor and would like to continue to be involved in this subject as indeed it is still very much a live topicMiketridore (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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|Contribs)} 21:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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|Contribs)}problem solving 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Turban and beard

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 external links on Reuben Singh. 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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Reuben Singh/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I believe the current version of the biography is balanced and feel it is inappropriate for individuals to taint the image or glorify the image of any individual on Wikipedia. All contributions indeed need to be referenced but it is wrong for some one to call genuine factual information an act of vandalism, this has been done by an unnamed contributor on several occasions deleting contributions from third parties to suit their own malicious agenda. I disagree it is balanced. There is no factual evidence to support these claims that the business and individual are 'where they are' as claimed. Using the companies own website, and speculation, does not make it fact. Thanos264 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]