Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gurbaksh Chahal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Disruptive Editing
Not sure why 121.203.236.203 and 61.238.106.82, who are likely WP:PAID, are so attacky in their (?) approach. That is certainly a peculiar tactic. Anyway, I'm semiprotecting the talk page for a couple of weeks, because this level of WP:SPAM is too much, and should at least not be accompanied with so much aggression. That, too, is taxing. El_C 11:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tampered with the personal relationship section of both Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa by simply removing it outright. This user was later blocked on February 22nd (Per consensus at ANI (discussion); violation of civility-related editing restriction) after he made his changes. For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 his reason was →Personal life: no current source For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 his reasons were →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated I did not know just because he saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, he had the ability to remove relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up? This was clearly done not in good faith. I was able to revert the changes for Rubina Bajwa but since I do not have EP status, I could not make the changes to Gurbaksh Chahal page. Please revert his changes accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
|
- Hello @Aoi: Sorry, I just edit the page before reading this discussion. I agree that the comments by the IP's are out of line, and given the history of the article, there is a good chance that they may have a COI. Still, Times of India is considered biased towards the government, but I think it can be considered reliable for the relationship. Also, since it is an interview to the subject himself, WP:ABOUTSELF would also apply, so I do not see a justified enough reason to remove it. I had to spend a lot of hours to finally reach a consensus on the many controversial issues of this article. There was lots of biased contributions in both directions. The current version was hard to reach, so unless there are policy based reasons for a change, I will try to defend the current status quo to avoid any temptations of new edit wars by either camp. I am of course open to any arguments and will always try to enforce any consensus we reach on this page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The Entertainment Times is not considered reliable – and it is easy to see from that specific source that it has nothing to do with factual reporting. Since it is difficult to find any information about this detail, it can't be said to be important information or relevant for a BLP. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not much question about this being a continuation of the PR editing around both of these articles. Special:Contributions/61.238.106.84 was hitting both articles to push the same things about a year ago. Both recent IP's geolocate to Hong Kong where his two most recent companies are based. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Relationships are a common thing to include in articles and they are not considered promotional. I agree that the IP's are most likely related to the subject, but they were not adding the content but rather restoring sourced information from a status quo version of the article (which took a lot of effort to reach). WP:BRD should be respected. Again, the relationship is not promotional and based on the interview and other sources it is also uncontroversial, so I still see no policy based justification to remove it. The original reason for the initial removal was that it was outdated, but the according to WP:ABOUTSELF the interview I added is a valid source to establish that they are still in a relationship. Both subjects are notable, the information is properly sourced according to WP:RS and other sources have also covered their relationship like the The Tribune (see here), so please restore the content until a consensus is reached. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits
Here are the explanation I provided for my edits:
- Too minor -- the 2013 E&Y award was for "Northern California region", which is insignificant / potentially misleading; preserved potentially useful sources as Further reading
- rm coronavirus material cited to opeds by Chahal -- this section requires secondary sources to establish weight; otherwise, this is puffery
- Photo from a fundraiser is immaterial, and seems designed to distract. Also removed self-cited claims / puffery.
- 'origin-story' tidbits from interviews are undue
- more of the origin story
Most of the contents removed came from interviews from the subject; he is not a reliable source.
The advocacy from an IP (who seems to be connected to the topic) should not be given much weight either: Special:Contributions/61.238.106.82.
--K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @K.e.coffman: Do we really want to open this can of worms again? The article had many eyes, was neutralized and the current consensus was reached after long edit wars in the article and lots of time discussing in talk. If there is no strong reason I think we should not revisit things we already dealt with in the past. That of course includes any attempts at whitewashing the domestic violence conviction.
- Having said that, I can support only your second proposed edit: [1] I agree with you that a secondary source is needed. If there are no objections by other editors I would also agree with removing that section.
- For the rest, I don't agree with making changes. The E&Y award for example is covered by multiple reliable sources including Business Insider which also covers him being a sikh. That is all we need to justify inclusion. I think it is good that as editors we don't have to decide what is significant or insignificant, our policies state that if a fact receives coverage by reliable sources, then it should be considered notable and if it does not violate WP:ISNOT I see no justifiable reason for exclusion. The image illustrates his political party affiliation claim in the article which I think is a valid use. The information from the interview is sourced from the words of the reporter so I think it qualifies as a valid secondary source. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see a need to bulk-revert every change here, but it's reasonable to expect a discussion of any non-trivial change to this article. Regarding K.e.coffman's edits, they do seem to cut a bit too much. Various of his awards seem like trade-show puffery that is unimportant; on the other hand the fact that he publicly identifies as a Sikh is sourced and needs to remain in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @力: You might be interested in reading Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal/Archive_1#Awards_(2-_see_above_with_same_title) and other sections of the talk archive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I restored K.e.coffman's second edit, as I agree fully with his reasoning on that point. Sorry for the blanket revert, despite the edit summary, I failed to notice that all 6 sources for that statement were actually written by the subject himself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I too am in complete agreement with User:Crystallizedcarbon and User:K.e.coffman on the removal of the material in question. All 6 sources referenced were written and posted by Gurbaksh himself. I'll search online for secondary sources.Faizal batliwala (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
So-called dismissal of Chahal's domestic violence conviction
Editor Faizal batliwala wrote about the subject of this article's domestic violence conviction, "In 2021, a San Francisco judge dismissed all charges related to this incident and entered a not guilty plea." However, the statement is clearly bogus for two reasons:
- The citation for the entry points to an SCRIBD page with a document that was uploaded by Chahal himself! Anyone may upload documents to SCRIBD. In this case, Chahal uploaded the document, which makes the document unfit for use in citations in Chahal's Wikipedia article. (I write this on 26 September 2021 and I fully expect Chahal to take down the document any moment.)
- The document is a petition for dismissal, not a dismissal of Chahal's domestic violence conviction. It's a petition, not a court ruling.
This latest attempt white-wash Chahal's domestic violence conviction is the most artless of all in my very humble opinion. Chisme (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is unacceptable. It's beyond obvious that Faizal batliwala is up to no good on this page. A topic ban, at minimum, is in order. I remain completely repulsed by Chahal's relentless interference with our community processes. So much valuable volunteer time has been wasted on his cover-up attempts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- The use of self published material for controversial issues is against WP:RS. Also, to avoid original research and posible mistakes, as interpreting a petition as a ruling, primary sources should be avoided. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The claim that this is a petition and wasn't granted may not be accurate; however, even if it was granted, that wouldn't mean that the charges were dismissed, but rather that a conviction was expunged from his record according to California Penal Code 1203.4. This is hardly a vindication, as this procedure is only meant to allow convicted criminals to avoid having their convictions turn up in background searches when applying for jobs; it doesn't suggest at all that he was cleared of the crime. His motives for spreading this document around without context are obvious. JerryAlphonse1928 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Review of edits to this article by Faizal batliwala
Faizal batliwala, who made numerous edits to this article beginning last July, has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for advertising or promotion and violating the foundation's terms of use. The block was issued a week ago and batliwala has not contested it. I have to assume he/she was blocked for attempting to white-wash or obscure Chahal's domestic violence conviction.
Since batliwala did not contest the block, can we assume he/she is guilty of violating the Wiki rules? For all I know, some of batliwala's edits are valid, but all the edits he made to this article are nonetheless suspect. I propose to examine all his/her edits and reverse them all since they were made it bad faith. Any objections? Chisme (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The only thing I will say is that we should not roll back their edits purely because they later ended up blocked. If they have contributed positively, even in a small part, then good for them. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see that they were blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Can't say I'm surprised given the extensive prior efforts to turn this article into a puff piece. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Domestic battery in lede
Whether to include Chahal's domestic battery conviction in this article's leded has been debated many times. The overwhelming consensus was it belongs there. Let's not rehash this for the hundredth time. Chisme (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Chisme. This debate is already closed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Strongly concur. See the archives (even ignoring the sockpuppets). It's a significant part of the notability of this person, and resulted in significant impact to his career. These aren't accusations, but convictions. They belong in the lead. Ravensfire (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- It certainly belongs; this version of the lead sounds appropriate to me: 17 July 2021. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
July 2022
I edited this page some years ago and was reminded of the article's subject by this recent article [2]. It seems like there's been quite a wrestling match with paid editors since then. One result seems to be that the article no longer lists the battery incidents in the first paragraph. This seems out of alignment with the reading and weight given by WP:RS. Looking at the top Google news hits from WP:RS, these incidents are in the headline describing his notability [3][4], provided as immediate context about him [5], or they are the subject of the article [6], [7][8][9][10][11], although there are also articles that cover his relationship without mentioning this part of his past [12],[13]. So, basically, wikipedia is fairly rare in simply portraying him as an entrepreneur, with the battery incients in the fourth graph. It doesn't seem like this was a decision made by the unpaid editors, but rather some trailing aftermath of the tangle with the paid ones, but I might be wrong about that. It seems appropriate to align the article with the sources again, including the high-profile relationship. I'll make the change in a moment, using the language that I think was consensus for a while. Of course, open to discussion... Chris vLS (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- This debate is closed. The charges do belong in the lead. The efforts from the paid editors were to remove them from the lead. Personally I do not see a need to reopen this issue just to move it to the first paragraph. In the same way, I defended including his relationship with Bajwa in the article, but also, I do not think that it should be included on the first line of the lead. To make those changes you would need to reach a consensus here. My advice would be to let the giant sleep. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)