Talk:Jas Athwal

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

To improve the quality of edits here - especially in the Criticism section, may I refer editors to two Wikipedia policies, namely the policy on Verifiability, which gives examples of reliable sources, and the policy on Neutral Point of View, which is that "articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias". --TrabiMechanic (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the claims about nominations, because they only cite "first hand reports" - these don't qualify as reliable sources and so the claim is not verifiable according to Wikipedia policy. The Yellow Advertiser article which is the only source cited does not relate to the claims made. If the editor (who isn't signed in so I can't contact them directly) provides reliable sources, I'm willing to think again. --TrabiMechanic (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Towards Wikipedia:NPOV I've supplemented the information given by User:Clapclap9 with links to primary source material in the form of Council minutes, and corrected the claim parks would be closed. I've copied this from edits I made to the 8th Sep version [1] --TrabiMechanic (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

To, Mr Jas Atheal, Reference. Work opertunities.

Hello, how are you? I would like to enquire if there are any Internship work opertunities within Ilford Council? I have volunteered for both Newham Council & Ilford CV on CV IL as a Representative. I've had previous experience from both Langdon School, Newham Sixth Form Collage & Newham College of Further Education (both in Plastiw, Stratford, East Ham Campuses).

You could contact me on either (Tel. 07846 936 638), Mail (31A Grosvenor Road, Ilford, Essex IG1 1LD or email, ghotit8@.Gmail.cim)!

I hope to hear a positive reply from you in the near guture.

Hope you shall have a great evening Mr Athwal & will be well...

Yours sincerely,



Mr Gurdip Singh Sian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdip Singh Sian (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the revertion of 27 Oct 2019 13:00[edit]

Hello, I have reverted back to [2] because it contained full information about Athwal's suspension without falling foul of libelling a living person on the basis of an unsubstantiated complaint. Please note none of the sources the anonymous editor User:95.146.152.152 has supplied mention the specific allegation. I believe the edits to be politically motivated attempts to tarnish the character of the subject of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrabiMechanic (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I have reverted to last night's structure, because the parliamentary selection campaign and suspension both belong in 'Political career'. I have cross referenced to the suspension from the 'Criticism' section, where I mention calls for Athwal to stand down as leader of the council following the suspension. TrabiMechanic (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:BLP.

Suspension[edit]

Can somebody add to the article about the subject being placed on administrative leave from the Labour Party due to allegations of sexual harassment? It's been covered by many mainstream news outlets 92.25.199.14 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about his suspension should include the details of why he was suspended as it's relevant and was mentioned in all major mainstream news reports of the suspension 92.25.199.14 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no detail of why he was suspended in any of the sources, and being specific about the allegations on the basis of no evidence is really irresponsible - especially in a Biography of a Living Person. I am duly removing any speculation about the specifics of the allegations. If more evidence emerges, we can think again.TrabiMechanic (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Information to be added or removed: "In October 2019 Jas Athwal was suspended from the party due to an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment."

Explanation of issue: This is a major news story regarding the subject of this article that has been in many mainstream media outlets

References supporting change: https://news.sky.com/story/two-labour-parliamentary-candidates-steven-saxby-and-jas-athwal-suspended-11828057 92.25.199.14 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Philroc (c) 14:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'm requesting an amendment to line 'On 4th October, 15 hours before the final selection meeting, the Party suspended Athwal on the basis of a complaint they had received in July'. This should be changed to 'On 4th October, 15 hours before the final selection meeting, the Party suspended Athwal on the basis of a complaint over sexual harassment they had received in July'.
Sources:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/107054/labour-plunged-race-row-after-sikh-candidate
https://labourlist.org/2019/10/ilford-south-selection-reopened-after-frontrunner-suspended/
https://news.sky.com/story/two-labour-parliamentary-candidates-steven-saxby-and-jas-athwal-suspended-11828057

83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The Sky News source says nothing about sexual harrassment, and I'm unsure of the [[WP:|reliability]] of the other two sources. For BLP-sensitive information such as this, we need high quality sources. NiciVampireHeart 11:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Sky News source says "Two potential Labour candidates for a parliamentary position have been suspended. One, Steven Saxby, was the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Cities of Westminster and London. It is not clear why he has been suspended but it is understood it is not due to any allegations of antisemitism. The second, Jas Athwal, was taking part in the race to be prospective parliamentary candidate in Ilford South. Labour List said on Saturday he was suspended "following a meeting of a panel dealing with sexual harassment complaints"."
If Sky News, Politics Home, and Labour List are not reliable sources then the line "The allegations against Jas Athwal were described as "extremely serious" should be added to the page.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49944605
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/05/labour-reopens-applications-for-ilford-south
https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/jas-athwal-ilford-south-redbridge-leader-suspended-from-labour-party-1-6309198
83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I'd take LabourList as generally reliable for internal party matters, but given the BLP sensitivity, I don't feel comfortable actioning this. Sceptre (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines do not say that a source previously considered reliable can be considered not reliable just because an article is BLP (WP:BLPSOURCE). Therefore either LabourList is a reliable source of internal party matters, or it is not and all the pages that use it as a source should be updated.
Either way, the line "The allegations against Jas Athwal were described as "extremely serious" should be added to the page.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49944605
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/05/labour-reopens-applications-for-ilford-south
https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/jas-athwal-ilford-south-redbridge-leader-suspended-from-labour-party-1-6309198
83.218.151.178 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: I have triple-sourced the quote "extremely serious allegations" and attributed it to "a Labour source" in line with The Guardian and the Ilford Recorder. I agree with NiciVampireHeart and Sceptre that the sources provided are not yet adequate to include wording regarding "sexual harassment". This is in line with the biographies of living persons policy, the guidelines and consensus on reliable sources and the due weight clause of the neutral point of view policy. SITH (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original source used by The Guardian and the Ilford Recorder for the "extremely serious allegations" line was from an article on PoliticsHome (https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/107054/labour-plunged-race-row-after-sikh-candidate). The same article contains the line "It is understood that a sexual harassment complaint was made about him nearly two months ago, but no action was taken until just after 6pm on Friday." There's also a tweet by a member of the NEC that confirms the suspension was for sexual harassment (https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/1180564987544293376). I therefore believe that if there's enough reliable sources for adding the line about the allegations being extremely serious then there are enough reliable sources for amending the line 'On 4th October, 15 hours before the final selection meeting, the Party suspended Athwal on the basis of a complaint they had received in July' to 'On 4th October, 15 hours before the final selection meeting, the Party suspended Athwal on the basis of a complaint over sexual harassment they had received in July'. 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be exceedingly careful when it comes to the issue of asserting people have engaged in sexual harassment, especially in a Wikipedia article, and especially post-Operation Midland. Any British editor who edits this article might find themselves legally liable for the content posted. Sceptre (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I am clear, it's wikipedia policy that Sky News and tweets by the NEC are not a reliable source. Have I got right? If you do not respond that it is Wikipedia policy and quote the policy that states the sources that were previously considered reliable are not reliable in this case I will be adding it to the page. Please note that the guidelines regarding due weight, neutral point of view are quite clear that this should be on the page. 92.4.140.96 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Although I would suggest the utmost care in doing so. Sceptre (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page is still locked. Please give your reasons why Labourlist and Sky News are not acceptable sources 92.4.140.96 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened the request 83.218.151.178 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Saying "I will add something unless I get an explanation I accept as to why I shouldn't" is not how issues that impact the biographies on Living Persons are productively treated. While Sky News is generally considered a RS, they only themselves source the sexual harassment claims to another outlet. This means, under the reliable sourcing and BLP policies that Sky New's reliability is moot. The reliability of LabourList is much less certain, since it is a admittedly "grassroots" website and accepts contributions from a wide variety of sources apparently minimal editorial judgment it falls under the category of self-published sources. (E.g., the Write for LabourList page only specifies minimal grounds for not accepting items.) Under the BLP policy, which is not optional, we have to default to an extremely cautious position on inclusion of any potentially defamatory material. I.e., Sky News and LaboutList are free to take the legal risks they judge reasonable, but we don't have to accept their judgement. I hope this helps explain the reluctance to accept the requested edits. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have readded the material as in addition to Sky News and Labour List it has been reported on Politics Homes and in The Times. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Edit Request[edit]

Information to be added or removed: The line 'At the end of his campaign and hours before the final selection ballot, Labour suspended him on the basis of unspecified "serious allegations"' should be changed to 'At the end of his campaign and hours before the final selection ballot, Labour suspended him on the basis of "serious allegations"'

Explanation of issue: None of the sources used on the page say that the nature of the allegations were unspecified. There are also sources that specify the nature of the allegations.

References supporting change: https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/jas-athwal-appointed-crime-lead-london-councils-1-5900840 https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/jas-athwal-ilford-south-redbridge-leader-suspended-from-labour-party-1-6309198 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49944605 https://labourlist.org/2019/10/ilford-south-selection-reopened-after-frontrunner-suspended/ https://news.sky.com/story/two-labour-parliamentary-candidates-steven-saxby-and-jas-athwal-suspended-11828057

83.218.151.178 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Duplicate edit request, please move discussion to the edit request above. Upsidedown Keyboard gonna take my horse... (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redbridge Library scandal[edit]

Spiked (magazine) today has Jas 'disgusted' at the antics of inappropriate LGBT 'entertainment' for kids in Redbridge- what is going on in Redbridge libraries? & what action is he taking to ensure it never happens again?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jas_Athwal&oldid=1196789396"