|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Just a clarification, NPOV generally means taking no sides or at the very least recognizing both sides of the situation, not just the pro-Singh POV. I've edited away the extreme POV of the Concordia passage and if I have time I'll do it for others, feel free to make adjustments from a true NPOV stance. djheart 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- In general, I agree with your edits, I'm re-inserting the molotov cocktail reference however, and just adding that the charges from Concordia were dismissed (I agree that the "alleged war criminals" and "big mean police beating up students" stuff was POV crap, surprised it lasted this long) - and was just curious whether you knew when he was detained at Maasiyahu, whether or not it was after he'd promised to leave...I don't know myself, hence why I'm asking. :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits, they are all fine. This has actually been one of my most positive editing exchange experiences. Thanks. djheart 03:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, always pleasant to work with somebody on improving an article that I have an interest in - while I was the original creator of the article, unfortunately the POV slipped in by an anonymous IP back in September seemed to evade me. There anything else in dispute? We used to have an image, but it seems somebody deleted it Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing else that I find disputable but I must admit that my knowledge of his West Coast entanglements is limited. djheart 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality disputed disclaimer
I've just added a tag disputing the neutrality of the article. Notably, police do not "kidnap" people, they take them into custody. I'm no fan of the New York Daily News, but saying they did something "falsely" is different from saying they did something "incorrectly". The article is also in dramatic need of citations. Thoughts?
18.104.22.168 11:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Justen Deal 11:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that when police snatch people off the road and throw them into unmarked vans without identifying themselves prior and without reading someone their rights, that is a "kidnapping." I recall reading an article by Naomi Klein describing exactly that sequence of events in a Globe and Mail article written during the Quebec summit protests.
- Also, it is not "POV" crap to call Netanyahu an "alleged war criminal." There are many people who believe he is a war criminal and some who don't. The protest mounted against his visit to Concordia was held on the basis that he is a war criminal that should be arrrested under Canada Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2000. The word "alleged" allows for those who disagree with that allegation to contest it.
- Finally, Jaggi was not deported from Israel for overstaying his welcome. He was deported because he was forbidden from visiting the occupied territories after being detained upon his arrival in the country and going to court. The judge ruled he could stay in Israel as long as he did not go to the occupied territories. He went, and published his reasons for going, including his belief that Israel had no sovereignty over those areas. When he returned to Jerusalem to visit a friend, he was snatched off the street by undercover police in an unmarked van, taken to the Russian Compound jail and then deported.
- This article needs citations. I will work on finding some. (UNSIGNED)
- No, police do not "kidnap", that point, and calling Netanyahu an alleged war criminal are non-negotiable quite frankly. I may believe Bush is a war criminal, but I can't go replace "President Bush" with "Alleged war criminal President Bush" in every Wikipedia article. That's disrupting WP to make a point, and forbidden. The issue of Jaggi's deportation is much more negotiable I think though, if proper (non-blog, non-biased) sources can show that was indeed the reason for his deportation. (Note that Naomi Klein is like citing Jerry Falwell, always a grain of salt, they tell the truth - but tell it slant) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
No slant. Naomi Klein was actually at the Summit, speaking to Jaggi on a cellphone moments before he was kidnapped. Numerous bystanders witnessed the event. There is even videotape of the attack which was broadcast by the CBC on the newsmagazine program The Fifth Estate on November 21, 2001. One article with a photo can be found here: . Save your grains of salt for Falwell, who incidently, has nothing in common with Klein.--Foamy Latte 08:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC) 08:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
When police fail to identify themselves as police and do not inform you that you are under arrest before snatching you off a street and throwing you into a van, that is not an "arrest" - it is a "kidnapping" or at the very least an "illegal detention".
Much ado has been made about providing sources for this article, which I went to painstaking effort to do, only to have all of them removed by someone reverting to an earlier edit. What is the point of claiming that sources are needed and then disregarding those provided? If only mainstream newspapers are acceptable sources, what is the point of having Wikipedia?
There are numerous other problems with the article as it currently appears, including using the word "alleged" before Singh's statement about the court's opnion on the testimony of security guards. If the court dismissed the charges against Singh, it is logical that the judge found Singh's version of events much more credible. A transcript of the court proceedings would confirm this.
- Unless the judge's findings say they found proof that supported his claims, then we use the word 'alleged', it's a general word that journalists love - watch your newspapers and such, it's a very common word. And check WP:V for why we only use reputable mainstream articles Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone who is forcibly removed from a location and detained has been either 'arrested' or 'kidnapped' depending on the perspective of each person involved and how they choose to frame their respective situation. When the police perform this action, it's called "arresting", when civilians do the exact same thing, it's called "kidnapping". Note the actual physical event is the same. To say "police don't 'kidnap' people, they take them into custody" is ludicrous doublespeak. Choosing how to frame and desribe this will always be from a point of view; in other words, non neutral. By calling what happned to Jaggi Singh "arrested", the incident gets described according to the government's own frame of reference. That's taking sides, i.e. a point of view; therefore non neutral. The same goes for 'war criminal'. Milosovich, for example, is heralded a war criminal, yet that is no less a politically charged term when it is applied to Bush, Kissinger or whomever, than when it is applied by a person dressed up in official judge's garb. These are all loaded terms. Political institutions and the concepts they employ are not neutral, but represent a point of view. Wikipedia's reliance on what it deems "reputable" sources and "peer" [pressure] review publications shows itself to be a non neutral position, since all mainstream news media (as one such political institution) is biased. The whole attempt at non neutrality is mired in self contradiction, particularly when it comes to political articles.--Foamy Latte 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think people should try and think about precision more in describing events, and worry less about purging any traces of POV, because, as foamy points out, that's ultimately impossible. But that doesn't mean a subject loaded with polarized viewpoints cant' be presented in a relatively neutral way by accurately presenting the various viewpoints - that's NPOV in an encyclopedic sense.
- According to dictionary.com, kidnap has a strong connotation with intending to hold the person for ransom, and was possibly coined by people who engaged in this practice. To me, the connotation is that it is a legal term, as in a charge under the criminal code (just as 'arrest' is a legal procedure, which diistinguishes it from other the terms - it doesn't actually say anything about detention - people are detained so that they can be arrested). I think "abducted" would be more appropriate here, because it doesn't have those connotations. "Nabbed" is used now for the Israel thing, but that sounds a little casual to me for an encyclopedia. In the Quebec City case, the reason why this is a significant point that probably should be included is because the way he was detained was considered extremely provocative to witnesses BECAUSE it looked like a kidnapping (thrown into an unmarked van and wisked away), and many people saw it as a pattern with the APEC thing. In both cases a non-physically threatening person was preemptively removed from a protest in a way that was outside normal protocals that are used for people actually committing crimes; in other words, it was political. This could be disputed, sure, but that's the thinking of those who made a fuss, and why it should be called abducted rather than detained as if it were just another mundane law enforcment matter. That would be misleading in this case.Bobanny 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
" after Singh allegedly threw tables and chairs at officers"
I removed this text as it was not in the actual title of the cbc article and is misleading.
Any information about Singh?
I certainly think that Singh is important enough to be included. But right now the article is mostly a list of his arrests, etc. More like what I'd expect in the Ronnie Dobbs article. If anyone has any info about the person to add, that would be great. But do we really need to keep the whole "rap sheet" up here? --JGGardiner 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It does seem that most of Singh's history involves being arrested. However, I can't see any reason to take that information down. Jaggi Singh is continually at odds with the law, wherever he goes. That's a fact, and it's pretty much why he's famous. None of the articles I've read about him mention anything articulate or persuasive about the causes he represents, it seems that everything said about him has to to with how poorly the cops treat him... poor Jaggi, wherever he goes, there are riots and violence and laws he can't help but break, he's a martyr to coincidence.
...runs an independent book store (?)
This last bit at the end of the previous entry is quite inaccurate. Jaggi was involved in the Alternative book shop (now replaced by the Librairie Insoumise) up to about 2002. Even then, he hardly "ran" it, as it was a collective. He did have some nominal involvement in the crisis that lead to the demise and replacement of the Alternative book shop, hence the bits I added about this. I'm a member of the Insoumise book store and before the book store crisis was a friend of Jaggi's. -Bern
- Thanks for the heads-up, I'll reword it to try and be a bit more clear :) If you could help with a better indication than "Montreal", that would also be useful. Don't suppose the store has a website? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
recent "pre-emptive" arrest
Something should be added about his recent "pre-emptive" arrest at a press conferance of prime minister Harper. When I'm back home after the weekend I'll try to find the articles if no one else has. Dan Carkner 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed "the" repeat. That's it. Luciferos 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)