Talk:Shahid Malik

message: 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)
thread_title: Whole parliament and Primeminister will be a muslim in 30 years?

message: 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)
replies: text: Possibly, or a supporter. I have edited to cut the hagiographic stuff. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotion

message: This page needs a photo to be found Matthewfelgate 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slander  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Standing Down and Inquiry  

message: 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)
thread_title: July 24

message: 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)
thread_title: Lots of problems

message: I have concerns about this section and have tagged it as follows: , , .
These tags should remain until all issues are satisfactorily resolved. Leaky Caldron 21:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Muslim Community 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lots of issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Expenses? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of problems with the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Chris Bryant - Head of European Affairs for the BBC from 1998., Celia Barlow - home news editor at the BBC  and even met her husband there who also stood for election for Labour. Phil Woolas, produced Newsnight  Denis MacShane - BBC radio newsreader/presenter (got sacked), Ben Bradshaw - BBC radio (worked for World at One program), Mike Hancock - BBC magazines, Sue Nye's link is well known as she got married to the Chairman , Diane Abbott - BBC Daily Politics show +others , Jackie Ashley - BBC journalist , James Purnell - BBC corporate. 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: shakehandsman objectivity?

message: 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%.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Another sockpuppet

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  (e • t • c) 22:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shahid Malik. 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/20121006000851/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/foi/foi-resettlement-grant-MP-names-F10-325.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/foi/foi-resettlement-grant-MP-names-F10-325.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210214157/http://www.labour.org.uk:80/mp/shahid_malik/493/ to http://www.labour.org.uk/mp/shahid_malik/493/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150620185820/http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2008/05/08/32850.html to http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2008/05/08/32850.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-8940230-selection-row-brewing-for-labour.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305183545/http://www.brad.ac.uk/news/awards/hon/shahid.php to http://www.brad.ac.uk/news/awards/hon/shahid.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620184347/http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/file/TheThamesGatewayWherenext.pdf to http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/file/TheThamesGatewayWherenext.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130122023719/http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/32476/print to http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/32476/print
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118102201/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641290547 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641290547
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) 18:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620202522/http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regeneration-body-to-be-merged-with-hca/6508136.article to http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regeneration-body-to-be-merged-with-hca/6508136.article
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) 09:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831205154/http://ukpolitics.telegraph.co.uk/Dewsbury/Shahid+Malik to http://ukpolitics.telegraph.co.uk/Dewsbury/Shahid+Malik
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620182452/http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/profiles/mp/Shahid-Malik/Dewsbury/308 to http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/profiles/mp/Shahid-Malik/Dewsbury/308
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322125452/http://www.thepressnews.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=967 to http://www.thepressnews.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=967
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) 20:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  RE: Voted one of the sexiest Members of Parliament 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BNP Votes 

message: 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)  
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this article - WP:NPOV