Talk:Pollokshields

"Asian" youths

The British commonly describe people of Middle Eastern, Indian, Pakistani, etc. origin as Asian, but the more international image of "Asian" is East Asians. Should be edited?

The Frederick 17:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the phrase used to describe the indian sub continent (india, pakistan, kashmir etc) is South Asia.

• I also agree, internationally, 'Asian' often refers to the japanese, chinese, koreans, vietnamese etc. As Wikipedia is an international organization I think 'Middle Eastern' would make the article easier to understand for people in the likes of the USA. Jackster (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They still remain "Asian" what reference proves that this is true? Only white people consider Asian to refer to East Asian - I mean what the hell? I'm reverting it. LOTRrules (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When referring to people extracted from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan - the term used on Wikipedia should be South Asian. It is more specific than Asian, the parameters are reasonably defined and understood, and it is correct regardless of who is viewing it. If this section is about the now deleted part regarding the Murder of Kriss Donald, then the description of their origin should be Pakistani, as all his murderers are extracted from Pakistan. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Selective

Would add that highlighting a horrific incident but isolated incident as half of the description of the area isn't really informative. Every murder is important and horrific regardless of motivation/race. A murder is a murder.

I do not see any entry for three men that were slaughtered and tortured less than half a mile away in Govanhill - but i suppose when they were on the reciving end of boiling water on their faces, hearing the murderers' drills whirring on door lock and being bashed in with a golf club, they simply said "phew, at least they're killing me for something other than the colour of my skin".

The Kris Donald article takes up too much of this page. It should probably be edited down to one or two sentences. The page needs expanding generally. 86.0.203.120 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article should briefly mention the murder, as it received much media coverage in Scotland, and involved an MP assisting in trying to bring the killers back to Scotland after they fled to Pakistan whilst on the run. The association between the area and that particularly sadistic, planned, racist murder of a 15 year old is still evident. It was far worse than the 'average' murder (if there is such a thing). As such, it should be briefly mentioned in this article, with a link to the article on the case. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a brief mention is required, particularly focusing on the aspects relating to the Pollokshields area itself. It seems strange that all mentions of the case have disappeared from this page, the murder is considered notable enough for its own article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The user above User:Nietzsche 2 that User:Shakehandsman is in agreement with, is a banned sockpuppet and all his comment on this talkpage should be discounted. - he is banned for, Creating a hostile enviroment with racist and homophobic comments,Youreallycan 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

While I am here - I oppose the desired addition by User:Shakehandsman that is imo, coatracking of a cherry picked racial focused murder in this article - Youreallycan 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all 3 of the editors supporting its inclusion here, not just any single one thank you.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please verify the other usernames that support this desired inclusion of yours - Is User:LOTRrules, this other blocked sockpuppet another of them Youreallycan 22:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I counted 3 editors and then myself supporting it. Even if we take out the banned editor that still leaves three. (I'm not really sure why you mentioned LOTRrules as I don't' see any text from them clearly supporting inclusion although perhaps I missed something?). Editor FrFintonStack in particular seems highly respectable, a prolific editor with a totally clean blocklist too. Also, please do not attempt to personalise matters, it is not a descried inclusion of mine, but the desired inclusion of the majority of those in this talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - You have been singular edit warring your desired addition into the article. - if you just name the supporters here it will be clear, who are the editors? You and User:FrFintonStack and ? - Also , please post the diff of these users supporting your desired addition, as I am struggling to find one on the talkpage for User:FrFintonStack. He says, "I think that the paragraph concerning Kriss Donald should be deleted altogether. I won't do it myself because I would like to know if anyone agrees," - so its not totally clear if he supports your desired addition. Youreallycan 22:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I have not edit warred, edit warrers are people who refuse to participate in discussion (or even acknowledge that a discussion exists!). I was enforcing consensus AND I even took part in this discussion before even making the edit, that's nowhere near edit warring and I don't' appreciate the accusation. The people who's stance I agree with are User:FrFintonStack and User:86.0.203.120 both of whom support a concise mention of the case. User:86.0.203.120 states "It should probably be edited down to one or two sentences" and this is the exact length of what I added and FrFintonStack similarly supports a fairly concise summary rather than anything too long.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You are also completely wrong about User:FrFintonStack, the comment you are falsely attributing to him was added by an IP.[1] User:FrFintonStack fully supports the inclusion of the case and his support is totally clear. I suggest you strike your sentence about User:FrFintonStack please--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I will have another look at that users contributions - You have added this content three time in the last couple of days, it remains removed - if edit warring could be described your recent edits would fit the pattern - anyway - there are two objectors and no consensus - so please stop attempting to force it into the article - Its clearly cherry picking - there are and have been lots of murders in the area and to add a single race related one is unacceptable - Youreallycan 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well how many of the other murders are so notable that they have their own article, resulted in one off extradition treaties, broke new legal ground and led some to redefine racism? That is not cherry picking at all, the murder is an key part of the area's history and I've put it in the history section. Once again edit warring is someone who goes against consensus and refuses to even acknowledge discussions never mind participate in them. Please save such terms for those who deserve it rather than those behaving admirably.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept there is no current consensus for your desired addition? - In my experience - articles about localities that have been there for hundreds of years are not the best place to coatrack a single racist murder, - Youreallycan 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, please start a new discussion if you wish to justify addition of tangential material to this article. Attempting to use years old comments from IP editors and banned users as consensus is absurd. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If the arguments are sound then that's what counts, it isn't a vote and the timing of any of the points is largely irrelevant too. As we've alrady discussed, even ignoring the banned editor then consensus was still to strongly to include the material and there haven't been any significant changes in the case that I'm aware of that might have changed people's decisions. Perhaps I should have replied in the section below rather than this one, but at least I've actually discussed things and the fact is that I was clearly enforcing consensus and I had nothing to justify as it was all already done. I see little benefit in starting brand new discussions when so much of the talk page is already dedicated to the issue at hand.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your claims that there is consensus here to add the material are completely disingenuous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no consensus to include this, far less "strongly". Crimes happen in many places, and I don't see anything unusual about this one that makes it particular and notable to Pollokshields. I am happy for Shakehandsman to demonstrate to me otherwise, but beginning from a point of claiming a consensus that obviously does not exist, and edit warring, is not a good start. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that I was supposedly edit-warring, yet the other party who reverted 3 times gets no such label. Anyway, it's worth noting that user Youreallycan is now indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for harassment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have recently studied a number of similar notable murders to see if they receive a mention within the area in which they were committed. Highly similar racist murders such as those of Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker are both mentioned in the article of the area in which they are committed and both those victims were in fact adults. The same goes for the murders of children such as Rhys Jones, Zoe Nelson, Sarah Payne, Tia Sharp, Shannon Matthews and so on. Articles such as Woolwich even have an entire section concerning Lee Rigby. In fact, it appears to be almost impossible to find any murder as notable as this one which doesn't receive a mention in the article of the area in which it was committed, both for UK crimes and for other countries. Given such a clear precedent, it is therefore clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Donald murder needs to be mentioned in this article. The precedent here is so strong that it falls upon those arguing against inclusion to make the case as to why this murder should be treated completely differently to every other one of similar (and even lesser) notability. If anything the relevance to the area itself is even stronger in this case, with both the victim and the perpetrators residing in the area in question.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Having examined the page history, I'd like to thank an IP for reverting the deletion of this entire section by above permanently blocked user user:Youreallycan (he had a habit of prematurely closing down discussions he didn't like).--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BNP input?

It seems to me that there is nothing about the murder of Kriss Donald that is specific to Pollokshields or its history. There is a significant Asian community in the area, and I think it is crossly negligent to have the only mention of Asians being as murderers of a white boy. The BNP made a great play of this murder at the time, which leads me to suspect that whoever added this paragraph was a BNP sympathiser. I think that the paragraph concerning Kriss Donald should be deleted altogether. I won't do it myself because I would like to know if anyone agrees, but if you see this and do agree, please delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.235.26 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2006‎

I edited the paragraph down significantly some time ago. Even at that, it is too large and detailed relative to the size of the article, but the answer to that is to expand the rest of the article, not delete noteworthy information. The Kriss Donald case was particularly notorious, and the area is still associated with it in people's minds. I believe it should stay, and I'm certainly no BNP sympathiser. FrFintonStack 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to remove the section of the article describing the BNP as not caring about people's feelings. Despite the truth in the statement, this article should rely on fact and personal opinions- no matter how appropriate- should generally be avoided unless reported as such. Moreover some of the article is too "wordy." There are spelling mistakes and, in general, the first paragraph of the section entitled: "So Called Gang Culture," does not make sense. I also suggest that future articles use more formal language I disagree with the use of contractions and other colloquiallisms in a formal article.

Who Are You?

Excuse me, who are you? please sign your name!!! (I'm talking to the guy/gal that's written the statement above!

Editing

Really if spot anything that has lead you to conclude that this article is full of mistakes, please - even if a lot of the mistakes are obvious - correct it yourselves! I have a copy of this article already saved - please edit it yourselves, as well this you'll be making a contribution to this article and for the good of Wikipedia!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pollokshields"

Garden suburb

Please stop uncritically describing Pollokshields at the UK's first garden suburb. It is not, because it was not planned in accordance with garden suburb principals of the likes of Ebenezer Howard; indeed, it predates those principals by fifty years. It being a suburb and it having gardens does not make it a garden suburb. Indeed, there are plenty of places which meet those criteria that are considerably older than Pollokshields.FrFintonStack 17:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Asian / Muslim emphasis

Cultural emphasis in the Pollokshields page

I came across this page after following the story about the murder of Kriss Donaldson. I wanted to know a little more about the area of Glasgow mentioned in regard to this story.

In this article there appears to be a subtle emphasis, a subtext, that indicates that this area, above all, is a Muslim asian suburb. Entries are positioned in this light

read;

1. Church citations are entered only after the three Mosques are detailed , along with photos. Why is this given that Asians are not a majority in this area? Church descriptions, without photos, are standard "Pesvner" architectural copy, while the Mosque descriptions only emphasise the congregationalservices and communities they offer with nothing about the buildings themselves or their patrons.

2. That only Asian radio stations are mentioned. Why? are there no local speaking FM radio stations?

Its a good piece but there is clearly some bias here that needs sorting out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxfordtownlad (talk • contribs) 07:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The current emphasis is most probably a result of the interests of those who have taken the time to add to the page, rather than any deliberate bias. It is a fact that this area does have a large Asian population, so the Asian radio stations are "local speaking". To my knowledge, any English language stations serving the area are not nearly so local, not peculiar to this area and so not worth mentioning. But you are right, it would be great if someone with further knowledge of the area was to add to it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The demographics section only mentions gender and age, not extraction, immigration or religion; the article fails give a reasonable idea of how Asian or Muslim the area is. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Map location

The location shown on the small map is wrong: it should be a centimetre or so to the east-north-east. The map in fact shows the approximate location of Mosspark.FrFintonStack (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Which county?

I came to this page looking for information on which county Pollokshields used to be in. Should this be part of the article? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Pollokshields,