Talk:Amar Singh (art dealer)

Major clean-up required and COI concerns

I have cleaned up some of the glaring bias and hyperbole in this article, which leads me to suspect that User:Sk1728 may have a close relationship to the subject. Violations included a copyvio image, claims of having spoken at Congress, which on further inspection turned out to be the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute's Annual Future Leaders Conference (not quite as it had been made out to sound by the original author of the article), and an overemphasis on ancestry, including name checking Vishvjit Singh as an uncle, who doesn't appear to be an uncle (in the western sense). Probably a promotional piece, but given the references won't AFD it right now. Needs more improvement. Daiaespera (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Clean up

I have cleaned up the article enough and moved it more towards compliance with WP:NPOV. Its in better shape now and any future edits that are promotional and cannot be sourced can likely be reverted.Sk1728 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Harvard graduate

There are multiple articles about Singh which refer to him as a Harvard graduate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 but since Singh is not listed in the Harvard Alumni Directory these sources should not be relied upon. As a contributor in the AFD discussion pointed out, it appears that Forbes have removed claims of a Bachelor of Arts/Science degree from Harvard University from Singh's 30 Under 30 profile. See before and after. Daiaespera (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Philanthropy

In May 2021 Forbes claimed that Singh has donated more than $5 million worth of art by Black, women and LGBTQ+ artists to museums. I believe this is journalistic error. A pledge had been made to donate that sum by 2025, but gifts of art, to date, don't appear to add up to that, so I would caution use of this source. Daiaespera (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Amar Singh.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Amar Singh.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Single source for controversies

The main source for the bulk of controversies alluded to in this was worked on by at least three high profile and award-winning journalists, including Hannah Ghorashi, George Pendle and Alessandra Stanley, so although these claims are indeed heavily reliant on a single citation, I trust their collective journalism, and I don't think they wouldn't have published the article without running it passed their own lawyers first. This source has also not been precluded as unreliable per the reliable sources noticeboard. Uhooep (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because there are at least 50 references from a wide range of independent sources, or at least there were this number of refs before some were removed --Uhooep (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead section length

Referring to the lead needs to be condensed tag by Scope creep

David notMD edits [1] tagged "overly detailed content in Lead cut and moved to Allegations section, then cutting duplication of content" were great, however these were reverted (Reversions: [2] [3]) LollipopWhimsy (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't care enough to contest it. David notMD (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is far too long. It needs to go into the main body of the article. I don't why the lede is so massive. I think it is shorter than it was, but needs to be reduced. The "misogynistic language" para has no place in a lead. It should only be a summary. scope_creep^Talk 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If its not shortened, I will do it. scope_creep^Talk 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of threats, misogyny and bribery

This article has recently seen the additions of numerous controversial and gossipy content, which is not presenting a fair and balanced view of the subject. The source of these materials is primarily a recently published Air Mail article. The entire 532-word section under the "Allegations of threats, misogyny, and bribery" relies exclusively on this single source. It's worth noting that no other reputable publication has covered this story. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper.

The article asserts that the subject made contact with journalist Hannah Ghorashi, who wrote the piece, to share the story of his relationship with a Swedish woman. This raises concerns about the independence of the content, as a significant part of the information may have come directly from the subject. According to best practices, sources should be secondary, reliable, and, independent of the subject.

WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." This Air Mail article discusses Amar's personal life, talks about his private conversations, call recordings, and makes some serious claims that haven't been corroborated by any other publications besides Air Mail and fails the standards of WP:IS and WP:V.

Considering these concerns, it would be wise to be cautious about adding this information to the article unless there are reliable sources that are independent of the subject, supporting these claims. I have removed the "Allegations of threats, misogyny, and bribery" section as per WP:BLPREMOVE. If you discover independent secondary sources, feel free to reintroduce the content accordingly.Sk1728 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Good work. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you too for keeping an eye on the page and reverting edits that introduced promotional material, unbalanced content, and claims without proper sources. I appreciate the work you have put into refining the article. Now, I am considering some adjustments to the lead section based on WP:LEAD guidelines. According to these guidelines, the lead "should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". However, the controversy related to the Swedish woman does not appear to be covered by other media outlets, and considering there are concerns about the independence of the Air Mail article, which may have sourced most of its information directly from the subjects of the article, I am hesitant to include it in the lead section. Despite waiting for several days in the hope of finding reports from other publications on this matter, it seems that such coverage is lacking. Therefore, I don't believe it meets the criteria for a notable controversy to be included in the lead section, in accordance with WP:LEAD and the other guidelines mentioned above.Sk1728 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor Scope Creep thank you for your comments it is also important to bring to your attention a clear conflict of interest occurring on this page, the individual user who originally put the false information on the page regarding donation claims and the Smithsonian is a user who has edited Singh's page 478 times

The user is Uhooep and Daiaespera (both the same user as Daiaespera is listed as a sockpuppet for Uhooep ) who was blocked for negative, biased edits to this page. This information is easily searchable on Wikipedia's user contribution search:

377 edits by Uhooep: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=+Uhooep+&page=Amar_Singh_%28art_dealer%29&server=enwiki&max=

101 edits by Daiaespera : https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Daiaespera+&page=Amar_Singh_%28art_dealer%29&server=enwiki&max=

The majority of these 478 edits by one single user have been biased, negative and placing incorrect information on this page. This is unquestionably a clear conflict of interest. Artswatch234 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Smithsonian Donation

I have followed the guidelines of wikipedia pertaining to biographies of living persons. There was a part of the text under Singh's career section reading:

Singh is alleged to have claimed on Instagram that he donated a painting by British-Liberian artist Lina Iris Viktor to the "Smithsonian Museum" in Washington, D.C., however according to journalists in 2023, the Smithsonian Institution had no record of the painting being in their collections, and the artist's studio declined to comment.^[1]

1) This section cites instagram as a source, which is not permitted by wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

2) This section uses a source, Air Mail, which has been deemed by editor User:Scope creep and other users to be unreliable and gossipy in content.

3) To further corroborate the statements in point 2 Air Mail's article and the entry on Singh's wikipedia incorrectly states " however according to journalists in 2023, the Smithsonian Institution had no record of the painting being in their collections," yet on the Smithsonian's own website the painting is listed in their collection directly contradicting the gossipy and unsourced content of Airmail. The Smithsonian's website link of the work in their collection is found here: https://www.si.edu/object/constellations-ii-se:nmafa_2018-10-1

4) The entry on Singh's page also states, quoting the gossipy content, "Singh is alleged to have claimed on Instagram that he donated a painting by British-Liberian artist Lina Iris Viktor to the "Smithsonian Museum" in Washington, D.C.". On the Smithsonian's own website link in the credit line Singh's gallery is credited: https://www.si.edu/object/constellations-ii-se:nmafa_2018-10-1

5) User Viewmont Viking reverted these changes and in regards to the credit line stated the credit is with Singh's gallery and not Singh however according to the UK government site, companies house (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10191413/officers) Singh held at least a 50% share in his gallery so the Smithsonian's credit line of his gallery is notable Artswatch234 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Airmail has not been determined to be a gossipy site. Original research is not permitted, as the Smithsonian site does not state that Singh provided the painting and by making the leap that Singh owns at least 50% of his gallery, it is OR to say A=B=C.

You have been edit warring. I had reverted it back to the last by scopecreep, you continue to portray them as the standard for RS and information so based on that standard it should be with the last version before you started edit warring and whitewashing the article. You appear to be a Single Purpose account, which makes it highly likely you also have a COI I recommend you complete a request for comment.

I honestly don't care about this individual, but I do care about COI editors trying to Whitewash information.--VViking_TalkEdits 02:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply VViking. I can appreciate your point about original research is not permitted however I respectfully disagree with the comments regarding Airmail Magazine. The extract quoted states " however according to journalists in 2023, the Smithsonian Institution had no record of the painting being in their collections," which is provably false and you keep adding this point back. The painting is without any original research clearly within the Smithsonian's collection: https://www.si.edu/object/constellations-ii-se:nmafa_2018-10-1

In addition to that I take onboard your comments regarding why there appears to be a COI and once again I respectfully push back on the fact I am using sources. I do feel adding information which is provably false and misquotes the sources also presents as a potential conflict of interest.

You also added back "Between 2021 and July 2022, Singh claimed to have donated $5 million worth of art by female, LGBTQ and minority artists to museums worldwide" which uses the citations of the Financial Times and Vanity Fair however according to your previous statement, with no original research, that is not what these citations state, they clearly state Singh pledged $5 million worth of art by 2025 and did not claim to have donated it. Artswatch234 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also VViking as you have stated you have concerned with editors with a conflict of interest, the individual user who originally put the false information on the page regarding donation claims and the Smithsonian is a user who has edited Singh's page 478 times this is a clear conflict of interest

The user is Uhooep and Daiaespera (both the same user as Daiaespera is listed as a sockpuppet for Uhooep ) who was blocked for negative, biased edits to this page. This information is easily searchable on Wikipedia's user contribution search:

377 edits by Uhooep: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=+Uhooep+&page=Amar_Singh_%28art_dealer%29&server=enwiki&max=

101 edits by Daiaespera  : https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Daiaespera+&page=Amar_Singh_%28art_dealer%29&server=enwiki&max=

The majority of these 478 edits by one single user have been biased, negative and placing incorrect information on this page. This is unquestionably a clear conflict of interest. Artswatch234 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)