Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal

gurbaksh is not a sikh

first of all, a lot of the content was added by User:Faizal batliwala, who is now banned.

this editor seemed to focus entirely on Gurbaksh, adding numerous claims that do not have any citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&diff=prev&oldid=1037720344

this one claims Gurbaksh is a sikh, without any WP:RS. i dispute this claim.

there are many Hindus these days who have "singh" in their middle name and are born in punjab.

in fact, it seems a lot of people are called sikhs if they are recent converts.

a prominent example of this phenomenon is Harpal Singh Kumar. now, i should emphasise i'm not making calls on who is a Sikh or not.

the fact is Sikhs are an ethnoreligious group. being born with the surname kumar strongly suggests this criteria is not met.

in the case of gurbaksh, there are no sources at all. in fact, the only source proclaiming him as such, ironically enough, is his own:

https://bnn.network/world/india/bnn-founder-gurbaksh-chahal-targeted-with-death-threats-amid-criticism-of-khalistan-movement/

this does not meet any of the required criteria to withstand moderation. it must be removed.

i'd go further and say mr kumar, while wearing a turban (some jains do this too, by the way), is not a sikh either.

people are ignoring the ethnoreligious component of being sikh. just because you convert (something we discourage, by the way), doesn't mean you are one.

i am sure mr kumar has done many good things in his life ("fighting cancer" etc), but we do not need, nor have we ever wanted, people representing us who are not actually one of us.

you cannot just say you are something that your genealogy cannot support. gurbaksh is an easy example of this.

@K.e.coffman: someone needs to clean this page up and probably restore it to the form before mr faizal batliwala probably edited it on gurbaksh's behalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.51.113.29 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of BNN?

BNN looks like another of his ventures, I came looking for his name after seeing him as founder there. Not sure if it's big enough to be mentioned, but being a news business, I would expect some details of his association. 103.51.113.29 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just created a separate article for BNN Breaking here DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Crystallizedcarbon, there is no mention of criminal charges in the infobox whatsoever in past discussions from what I can tell. If I'm missing something, please point me in the right direction of archived discussion about this very point. Also, the standard Template:Infobox person contains an item for convicted criminals only and requires WP:RS. That would all be satisfied and would be entirely germane here without any violation of WP:CRITS. - Amigao (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, the word 'infobox' does not appear once in either of the two archives for this talk page, so you are correct that this has not been discussed. Also, WP:CRIT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the attention to detail regarding the infobox, but I believe this discussion needs to be placed in the broader context of the article's overall balance and adherence to Wikipedia policies. I've started a comprehensive discussion about the multiple issues affecting this article here: Critical BLP Issues.

Regarding the specific point about criminal charges in the infobox:

1. The case in question resulted in a misdemeanor plea, not a felony conviction, and has since been expunged (court document available here). This raises significant BLP concerns about the appropriateness of including it in the infobox at all.

2. Comparing this article to other BLPs with more serious legal issues (e.g., Robert Downey Jr., Martha Stewart, Chris Brown), we see that none of them include criminal charges in their infoboxes, despite some involving felony convictions and prison time. This suggests that including such information in an infobox for an expunged misdemeanor would be unprecedented and likely violate undue weight guidelines.

3. The persistent focus on this expunged misdemeanor, especially in such a prominent position as the infobox, appears to violate several Wikipedia policies, including:

• Undue weight
• Biographies of living persons
• Neutral point of view
• Recentism
• Due and undue weight

4. The article already covers this incident in detail in the main text. Adding it to the infobox would further emphasize an aspect of Chahal's life that has been legally expunged and is not representative of his overall career or current status, potentially violating coatrack principles.

5. The repeated attempts to add this information to the infobox, despite it being an 11-year-old expunged misdemeanor case, could be seen as a form of hounding and potentially violate harassment policies.

6. Including such information in the infobox would likely fail the significant coverage test, as it's not a defining characteristic of the subject's notability or current status.

I strongly urge both of you to review the broader discussion I've started at Critical BLP Issues, which addresses this issue along with several others affecting the article's balance and accuracy. Your input on these wider concerns would be valuable in working towards a more comprehensive and policy-compliant article that adheres to Wikipedia's core principles of neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Amigao: You are correct. In the status quo version that took a lot of effort to achieve there was no mention of the criminal charges in the infobox. It was added afterwards as a bold edit. That is the reason why it was not discussed directly. What we did reach a consensus over (with a lot of time and effort), was that the criminal charges belonged in the lead but that it should be limited and that no separate section should be created, since it would be undue weight. Same applies to including it in the infobox. That field should be used for people mainly notable for their criminal activities. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Crystallizedcarbon. Agreed that Chahal's criminal conviction and incarceration should be a mention in the lede as they are further developed in the body, but that doesn't exactly explain why the point shouldn't be a single item in the infobox? It seems arbitrary if there is already clear consensus that the criminal conviction and incarceration are in the lede and body. Is there any WP:POLICY or guideline that says that said infobox item should be limited "for people mainly notable for their criminal activities" as you put it? - Amigao (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao: @Crystallizedcarbon:

Amigao, I have to be direct here. Your persistent attempts to add "Criminal charges" to the infobox are concerning and seem to violate several Wikipedia policies:

1. This was a misdemeanor, not a felony, and it has been legally expunged (court document). Including expunged charges violates BLP guidelines and the spirit of expungement.

2. Placing this in the infobox gives it undue weight (WP:UNDUE), especially for an 11-year-old expunged misdemeanor.

3. Other BLPs with more serious legal issues (Robert Downey Jr., Martha Stewart, Chris Brown) don't have criminal charges in their infoboxes. Why should this case be different?

4. The infobox should summarize notable aspects. An expunged misdemeanor isn't defining (WP:COATRACK).

5. The expungement is more recent than the charge. Ignoring this violates WP:RECENTISM.

6. WP:BLPCRIME advises extreme caution with criminal allegations in BLPs.

Your relentless focus on including this expunged misdemeanor is troubling. Can you point to any Wikipedia BLP precedent that allows including expunged misdemeanors in infoboxes? If not, how do you justify this push without violating Wikipedia policies?

This persistent effort to emphasize a single, expunged incident seems to go against WP:NPOV and could be seen as WP:HOUNDING.

I strongly urge you to step back and consider the broader context of the article's balance, as discussed in the Critical BLP Issues section.

Why are you so focused on this one aspect of Chahal's life? How does this align with Wikipedia's goal of providing a balanced, neutral biography? MmHosssaintech (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Amigao: There is no policy that explicitly restricts it, but it goes in line with what was discussed to reach the current consensus that if you read the archive you can see that the discussion was extensive. It follows the same logic outlined in WP:CRIT. The idea is to present the information, but not overemphasize it. That is why we decided not to keep the criminal charges and conviction in a separate section. And that is why I think that adding it to the infobox gives undue weight to it. Regards --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Critical BLP Issues: Addressing Imbalance and Multiple Policy Violations in Gurbaksh Chahal Page

I am opening this thread to address serious concerns about the current state of this article. After extensive research and discussions with @Crystallizedcarbon: and @TheSandDoctor:, I believe the article violates several Wikipedia policies and does not meet the standards for a balanced biography of a living person. The current state of the article not only violates multiple Wikipedia policies but also potentially harms the reputation of a living person, making this a critical BLP issue that requires immediate attention. First, I want to clearly state that I have no conflict of interest regarding this subject. My sole motivation is to ensure this article adheres to Wikipedia's policies, particularly those concerning biographies of living persons. Advocating for neutrality and balance does not equate to having a COI. In line with Wikipedia's assume good faith policy, I believe all editors involved have been acting with the intention of improving the article, even if the result has led to imbalances. Key concerns include:

1. Neutral Point of View and Balance

• The article focuses excessively on a single controversy (the domestic violence case) while minimizing recent achievements and contributions.
• There's an overemphasis on negative aspects with inadequate coverage of positive contributions, including intellectual property, other business ventures, and philanthropic activities.

2. Undue Weight and Due Weight

• Disproportionate focus on an 11-year-old legal issue, evident in four sentences in the lead, a separate section in Personal life, and an additional three-paragraph "Domestic violence and battery conviction" section.
• Undue prominence given to BNN Breaking, which itself has accuracy and neutrality issues.
• Minimization of significant aspects of the subject's career, recent activities, and achievements, such as:
  • ProcureNet, where Chahal has been CEO for nearly half a decade, is mentioned in only one sentence in the entire article, despite its significant role during the COVID-19 pandemic (NYTimes source, Down To Earth source)
  • The Chahal Foundation, his non-profit organization that has been active for 12 years, is given only two sentences in the biography.
  • Gravity4's achievements and innovations, which have been covered by reputable sources, are minimally discussed (Wall Street Journal, The Drum, South China Morning Post, AdExchanger, Reuters, Mumbrella, Fusões & Aquisições)
  • Other ventures such as RedLotus are mentioned only briefly without adequate context.
• Minimization of significant entrepreneurial achievements:
  • ClickAgents, a groundbreaking venture that made Chahal a millionaire at 18, is relegated to a single paragraph despite its innovative nature and $40 million acquisition.
  • BlueLithium, which was sold to Yahoo! for $300 million and was recognized as one of the most disruptive innovations of 2006, is covered in just two paragraphs, with half the space dedicated to a tangential social network project.
  • These early successes, which established Chahal as a notable figure in the tech industry, are not given appropriate weight in the current article structure.
• Omission of relevant personal achievements:
  • Chahal's book, "The Dream: How I Learned the Risks and Rewards of Entrepreneurship and Made Millions," is merely mentioned in a "Publications" section at the end of the article without any context or discussion of its content or impact.
• This imbalance in coverage violates the core principle of Wikipedia's due and undue weight policy, which states that 'Wikipedia articles should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.'

3. Biographies of Living Persons

• Potentially damaging claims based on outdated information, particularly regarding the expunged case.
• Use of sensationalist details for shock value, violating the principle of treating living subjects with respect.
• Failure to include the 2021 expungement of the legal case, despite publicly available court documents that can be easily found through a simple Google search (Court Order).

4. Recentism and Comprehensiveness

• Failure to update with recent developments (expungement, ProcureNet's role in COVID-19 response, Gravity4's achievements, recent philanthropic activities).
• Inadequate coverage of significant career aspects, including ProcureNet's impact and numerous awards and recognitions.

5. Coatrack

• The article uses Chahal's biography as a vehicle to extensively discuss controversial topics rather than providing a balanced overview of his life and career.
• Specific issues include:
  • Disproportionate focus on an 11-year-old legally expunged case.
  • Gravity4 section prominently features an unsubstantiated lawsuit claim, overshadowing actual business activities and achievements.
  • Dedicated BNN Breaking section focuses solely on controversies and links to a separate problematic Wikipedia page.

6. Verifiability and Reliable Sources

• The article fails to include verifiable information about the expungement of the legal case, despite available court documents.
• Some claims, particularly in the BNN Breaking section, rely heavily on limited sources without adequate corroboration.
• The article contains demonstrably false information, particularly regarding TrimFeed:
  • The BNN Breaking section claims "Trimfeed was closed after The New York Times informed Chahal they were doing a report on BNN."
  • However, TrimFeed remains active, as evidenced by recent articles on their website (TrimFeed source).
  • This false claim violates Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources policies, as well as the fundamental principle of accuracy.
• The inclusion of such easily disproven false information raises serious concerns about the overall reliability and neutrality of the article's content.

7. Conflict of Interest and Battleground Behavior

• There appears to be a pattern of coordinated editing between the Gurbaksh Chahal page and the BNN Breaking page.
• Editors such as Amigao (talk · contribs), Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk · contribs), War Term (talk · contribs), Belbury (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs), and Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs), among others, have been consistently adding and emphasizing the 11-year-old controversy and BNN Breaking on the Gurbaksh Chahal page while also contributing significantly to the BNN Breaking page.
• A review of the edit history over the years reveals a concerning pattern. Certain editors, including Chisme (talk · contribs), Lepricavark (talk · contribs), and others, have made consistent efforts to remove neutral or positive aspects of Chahal's history while simultaneously adding back sensationalist details related to the 11-year-old legal issue that has been expunged, as well as adding unsubstantiated claims about a lawsuit regarding Gravity4, while minimizing details about the company itself.
• This pattern suggests a potential conflict of interest and possible battleground behavior, as these editors appear to be using multiple pages to push a particular narrative about the subject.
• Such behavior violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral editing and assuming good faith, raising concerns about the motivations behind these edits.
• This connection between the two pages and the consistent pattern of biased editing further reinforces the Coatrack concerns, as it suggests a coordinated and long-term effort to emphasize certain aspects of the subject's life across multiple Wikipedia articles while minimizing or removing others.
• A more comprehensive review of the edit history may reveal additional editors engaged in this pattern of behavior.

8. Ongoing Manipulation and Disruptive Editing

• Recent attempts to add "Criminal Charges" to the infobox, despite being reverted twice by Crystallizedcarbon (talk · contribs), demonstrate a continued pattern of manipulative editing.
• Amigao (talk · contribs), who has already been identified as having a potential COI due to their edits on both the BNN Breaking and Gurbaksh Chahal pages, has initiated a separate talk page thread to push for the inclusion of these charges in the infobox.
• Lepricavark (talk · contribs)'s edit history for this page shows a singular focus on spreading information about the 11-year-old case, raising concerns about their neutrality and adherence to WP:BLP guidelines.
• These recent actions further exemplify the ongoing issues with this article:
  • Attempts to reintroduce and emphasize outdated, expunged legal issues
  • Disregard for previous editorial decisions and consensus
  • Potential coordinated efforts to maintain a negative bias in the article
• Such behavior continues to violate Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, biographies of living persons, and recentism.
• These persistent attempts to add 'Criminal Charges' to the infobox for an expunged misdemeanor, when other BLPs with more serious criminal histories do not have such listings, appear to be a form of hounding and potentially violate harassment policies.

For comparison, Wikipedia articles on public figures with past legal issues, including those more severe than Chahal's, consistently handle these matters briefly and maintain focus on the subjects' careers and achievements. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's policies on balanced coverage and due weight. Consider the following examples: Felony Convictions and Serious Legal Issues:

• Robert Downey Jr.: Despite well-documented substance abuse and multiple felony convictions, his page dedicates only a small portion to these issues. The majority focuses on his career achievements, including his comeback and success in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
• Martha Stewart: Convicted of multiple felonies in 2004, including conspiracy and obstruction of justice, Stewart served five months in federal prison. Her Wikipedia page covers this concisely, focusing primarily on her business ventures and media career.
• Tim Allen: His 1978 arrest and two-year federal prison sentence for drug trafficking (a felony) are covered in one paragraph, with the bulk of the article focusing on his career.

Domestic Violence and Related Incidents:

• Chris Brown: Despite a highly publicized domestic violence case involving Rihanna in 2009, Brown's Wikipedia page maintains a balanced approach. The incident is covered in about three paragraphs within a broader "Legal issues" section, providing basic facts without graphic details. The article predominantly focuses on his music career and achievements.
• Mel Gibson: His 2011 no contest plea to a misdemeanor battery charge is mentioned briefly in a "Controversies" section, without dominating his article.
• Tommy Lee: His 1998 six-month jail sentence for assaulting Pamela Anderson is covered succinctly in a "Legal troubles" section.
• Terrence Howard: His arrest and guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to a domestic incident are mentioned concisely in a "Personal life" section.

Other Notable Cases:

• Hugh Grant: His highly publicized 1995 arrest is mentioned in a single sentence within the "Personal life" section.

Importantly, none of these articles include "Criminal Charges" in their infoboxes, despite some cases involving convictions, guilty pleas, or extensive legal troubles. This consistent approach across Wikipedia for handling legal issues in biographies of living persons stands in stark contrast to the current state of Gurbaksh Chahal's page. The disproportionate focus on Chahal's expunged misdemeanor charge, particularly its prominence in the article and attempts to include it in the infobox, clearly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view, undue weight, and biographies of living persons policies. This discrepancy underscores the need for a thorough revision of Chahal's article to bring it in line with Wikipedia's standards for balanced and fair coverage. Additionally, the related BNN Breaking page raises several concerns:

• Notability: It's questionable whether BNN Breaking meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, given its short lifespan and primary notability stemming from controversies rather than significant contributions to journalism or technology.
• Neutral Point of View: The page fails to present a balanced view, focusing almost exclusively on controversies and negative aspects.
• Coatrack: The article appears to use BNN Breaking as a vehicle to discuss controversies related to Gurbaksh Chahal, rather than focusing on the website itself.
• Accuracy: The page contains factual errors, such as claiming TrimFeed was shut down when it remains active.
• Verifiability: Several claims are not properly verified, including the assertion about TrimFeed's shutdown.
• Due Weight: Undue prominence is given to certain sources without presenting counterarguments or alternative viewpoints.
• Reliable Sources: The article relies heavily on a limited number of sources for significant claims, without adequate corroboration or presentation of alternative perspectives.
• Conflict of Interest: The page appears to have been created and primarily edited by the same group of editors who have been adding negative content to the main Gurbaksh Chahal article, suggesting a potential coordinated effort to emphasize certain narratives across multiple pages.

These issues with the BNN Breaking page further contribute to the imbalance in Chahal's portrayal in his main biography. Based on the issues identified, I propose the following actions to bring this article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies: 1. Rebalance the article in accordance with neutral point of view and due weight policies, giving appropriate coverage to recent achievements and contributions while reducing the disproportionate focus on past controversies. 2. Include information about the 2021 expungement of the legal case, using the available court documents as a primary source, in line with BLP and BLPCRIME guidelines. 3. Reassess the coverage of BNN Breaking within this article, ensuring it's proportionate to its significance in the subject's career, as per undue weight policy. 4. Expand sections on the subject's career achievements, in accordance with comprehensiveness guidelines, particularly: a. Recent ventures like ProcureNet and its role during the COVID-19 pandemic b. Detailed information about Gravity4, including its achievements, innovations, and market impact c. Information about other current ventures such as RedLotus d. The subject's contributions to intellectual property, including patents he has created 5. Address the coatrack issues by refocusing the article on the subject's life and career rather than tangential controversies. 6. Improve sourcing to include a wider range of reliable sources that cover recent developments and achievements, in line with verifiability policy. 7. Remove unsubstantiated claims, particularly those related to lawsuits or controversies that lack reliable sources or verifiable outcomes, in accordance with BLP, BLPCRIME, verifiability, due weight, recentism, and PROPORTION guidelines. 8. Expand the coverage of the subject's philanthropic activities and awards received throughout his career, particularly the work of the Chahal Foundation, in line with balance guidelines. 9. Review the editing patterns on both this page and the BNN Breaking page to address potential conflict of interest issues, particularly: a. The consistent removal of neutral or positive content by certain editors b. The repeated addition of sensationalist details about the expunged legal case c. The addition of unsubstantiated claims about lawsuits while minimizing factual information about companies like Gravity4 10. Ensure that the lead section provides a balanced summary of the subject's life and career, giving due weight to his entrepreneurial achievements and recent activities, as per lead guidelines. 11. Address the misuse of the current Extended confirmed protection status, which appears to be facilitating biased editing rather than preventing disruption:

• Request a review of the page protection status by uninvolved administrators to ensure it's not being used to maintain a biased narrative.
• Implement additional oversight measures, such as requesting page protection that allows for more neutral editing, or consider 3RR exemptions for editors attempting to add well-sourced, neutral content.
• Encourage involvement from uninvolved editors with a history of neutral editing on controversial BLPs to help maintain balance.
• If necessary, propose a Request for Comment to establish a clear consensus on the article's content and structure, ensuring adherence to NPOV and BLP policies.

12. Consider requesting a discretionary sanctions alert be placed on this page to discourage further disruptive editing and ensure adherence to BLP policies. 13. Maintain the current infobox structure to avoid violations of infobox guidelines and BLP policy, ensuring no undue emphasis is placed on past controversies or expunged legal issues. 14. Restructure the article to follow a more standard layout for biographies, ensuring a chronological flow and appropriate sectioning that doesn't overemphasize any single aspect of the subject's life or career. 15. Establish a system for regular review of the article by uninvolved editors to ensure continued compliance with Wikipedia policies, particularly BLP and NPOV. 16. Expand and restructure the coverage of Chahal's early entrepreneurial successes: a. Provide more detailed information about ClickAgents, its innovative aspects, and its impact on the ad-tech industry. b. Dedicate a separate, more comprehensive section to BlueLithium, detailing its growth, achievements, and eventual acquisition by Yahoo!. c. Move the brief mention of MingleNow to a separate subsection or paragraph to avoid diluting the focus on BlueLithium. 17. Include a proper section on Chahal's book: a. Add information about the book's content, reception, and any impact it had on aspiring entrepreneurs or the tech industry. b. Consider moving this information to a more prominent position in the article, possibly under a "Writing" or "Publications" section in the main body of the text. 18. Remove demonstrably false information from the article, particularly: a. The claim that TrimFeed was closed, when it is demonstrably still active. b. Any other claims that can be proven false through readily available evidence. c. Implement a more rigorous fact-checking process for all claims in the article, especially those related to recent events or ongoing business ventures. These changes are necessary to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, balance, and accuracy in biographies of living persons. If any editor has concerns about these proposed changes, please explain your objections in terms of specific Wikipedia policies. Thank you for your consideration and input. I look forward to a constructive discussion on improving this article. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

My prior experience with this article makes it impossible for me to believe your claim that you don't have a conflict of interest. Also, how much of this did you write yourself, and how much is AI-generated? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@LEPRICAVARK: Thank you for your response. I appreciate your engagement in this discussion.

However, I'm concerned that it doesn't address the substantive policy issues raised in the main discussion and instead makes unfounded assumptions. This approach seems to conflict with several Wikipedia principles, which I am a strong proponent of as per neutral point of view and Wikipedia policies:

• Assuming Good Faith: Your dismissal of my statement regarding COI goes against this fundamental principle.
• Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia: Focusing on speculations rather than addressing content issues detracts from improving the article.
• No Personal Attacks: Implying dishonesty about COI status or writing methods could be construed as a personal attack.
• Stick to the Facts: The response doesn't engage with any of the specific policy violations or content issues raised.

I urge you to reconsider this approach and instead focus on the substantive issues raised about the article's compliance with Wikipedia policies. If you have specific concerns about any points I've made, I'd be happy to discuss them in detail, with reference to relevant guidelines and policies.

Regarding your specific points:

1. COI: I've clearly stated I have no conflict of interest. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, per assuming good faith and burden of evidence, my statement should be accepted.

2. Authorship: The content of my post is entirely my own, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you have specific concerns about any part of it, please address those directly.

I look forward to a constructive dialogue focused on improving the article in line with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, balance, and accuracy in biographies of living persons. I respectfully ask that you show the same consideration, respect and good faith that I've extended to you in my initial post and this response. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your engagement in this discussion. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. And don't bother responding with any more AI-generated gobbledygook. Oh, and by the way, exactly when did you have a discussion about this with TheSandDoctor? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lepricavark:

Your response violates several Wikipedia policies, including civility, assuming good faith, and no personal attacks. Such behavior is not conducive to constructive dialogue.

To clarify:

1. I initiated this discussion by contacting both Crystallizedcarbon and TheSandDoctor, as evidenced here: Crystallizedcarbon's talk page. I also reached out to TheSandDoctor on their talk page.

2. In that discussion, I referenced TheSandDoctor's previous concerns about contentious edits, which remain relevant:

Re-reading, I still stand by my comments from 2018 and wonder why this essentially reversed back to the state it was in mid conflict. As in 2018, the whole "117" thing doesn't deserve a spot in the article unless strong consensus is formed -- of which it appears none has been to my knowledge for any of the re-additions -- given that it is only "allegedly" and never used/proven in court. We aren't in the business of being sensational. I hate to see history repeating itself; this is a quagmire I thought was behind us, as I am sure you did as well Crystallizedcarbon. TheSandDoctor Talk 06:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This highlights the ongoing nature of the issues with this article and the need for a comprehensive review.

3. Your focus on irrelevant matters and use of inflammatory language appears to be an attempt to derail the substantive discussion about the article's issues. This could be seen as a form of deflection.

4. For context, my background is in policy analysis and regulatory compliance. That's why my posts tend to be structured and detailed. It's how I'm accustomed to breaking down complex issues, which I've applied here to Wikipedia policies and content problems.

Your behavior here further illustrates the bias towards this page, which has been evidenced in your history of edits. This pattern of editing could be seen as violating neutral point of view guidelines. I urge you to refocus on the actual content issues raised in the main discussion:

Critical BLP Issues

If you have specific, policy-based objections to the points raised there, please present them. Otherwise, I suggest we move forward with addressing the article's compliance with neutral point of view, verifiability, and biographies of living persons policies.

Unless future responses are related to policy discussions and the substantive issues raised, this will be my last reply to you on this matter. Further personal attacks or off-topic accusations will be reported as disruptive editing to appropriate administrative noticeboards.

≠ MmHosssaintech (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you have not actually discussed this matter directly with the TheSandDoctor. Beginning your manifesto with a factually incorrect statement was an interesting choice. Your threats do not intimidate me, although I will admit to being annoyed by your attempts to use misapplied policies to silence me even as you continue to deny your blatant COI. This is not my first rodeo with paid editors at this article. Report me all you want, but before you do, you may want to ask the prior COI editors hired by Chahal if the reports they field against me were effective. Actually, you can't ask them because they are all blocked.

Stop wasting our time with these poorly-disguised attempts to target good faith editors. We've dealt with plenty of other COI editors, and you certainly aren't the most skilled one that we've encountered. Obviously, you're here because you want this article to include your claim that Chahal's conviction was expunged. So quit posting giant walls of AI-generated nonsense (no, we do not believe that you have a background in in policy analysis and regulatory compliance), and find us a reliable source. So far, all you've shown us is a court document that was self-published by the same guy who launched a fake news site. For all we know, that document could be a forgery. After all, if there's anyone who knows what court documents look like, it's Gurbaksh Chahal. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think the article in its current state violates the BLP policy and cannot be improved, then nominate it for deletion. If you want something to be added or removed, make an edit request. Posting a wall of text achieves nothing. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira:

Thank you for your input. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment for several reasons:

1. Wikipedia is not limited by paper and General Notability Guideline: The subject clearly meets notability criteria. The issue is not the article's existence, but its current imbalance and policy violations. Deletion would be contrary to Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive, accurate information about notable subjects.

2. Bold, Revert, Discuss: Given the article's history and current protection status, starting with a comprehensive discussion is the appropriate approach. This aligns with the "Discuss" part of BRD, especially for contentious articles.

3. Preserve, Merge, Split: The detailed analysis provided aims to preserve valuable content while addressing issues, which is preferable to deletion.

4. Consensus building: The "wall of text" you refer to is a thorough analysis intended to foster informed discussion and build consensus for improvements, in line with Wikipedia's collaborative nature.

5. Complex issues: The problems with this article are multifaceted and interconnected. A simple edit request would not adequately address the systemic issues identified.

6. Neutral Point of View: The current state of the article appears to violate this core policy. A comprehensive review is necessary to restore balance.

7. Disruptive editing: The analysis highlights patterns of potentially disruptive editing that require community attention and cannot be resolved through individual edit requests.

The goal here is not to make unilateral changes, but to engage the community in a thorough review and improvement of the article. This approach is in line with Wikipedia's policies on collaboration and continuous improvement.

I welcome constructive thoughts on the policy violations and content issues raised in the main discussion. Your input on how to address these concerns constructively would be valuable. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:CHUNK and WP:MWOT? This article's talk page has had 0-5 views on average over the last three months, which means no one bothers to look at it. Even the few editors who would like to help you will not engage if they see giant paragraphs addressing different problems instead of precise mentions of what needs to be done.

A simple edit request would not adequately address the systemic issues identified. - It will if you take the time to make smaller edit requests, which will get implemented sooner. Here are some sample edit requests.

I am trying to help you here, but if I see one more AI reply, you will lose me as well. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira:

Hey, thanks for trying to help out. I get where you're coming from, but I think you might be missing the bigger picture here. I've spent hours and hours digging through the page, edit history, talk history archives, etc. That's why my analysis is pretty detailed - it reflects the complexity of the issues I've uncovered.

I know about CHUNK and MWOT, but here's the thing—this isn't just about tweaking a few sentences. We've got some big-picture issues that run through the whole article, so I've had to break it all down in detail.

Sure, the page isn't getting many views right now. But that doesn't mean it's okay to leave it with problems, especially for a living person's bio (BLP). Maybe it's not getting views because it needs some serious work? I've given specific examples of how other BLP bios are handled, and the contrast with this one is pretty drastic. It's not just about minor differences - we're talking about major discrepancies in how similar situations are treated.

I hear you on the edit requests, but small fixes won't solve the bigger issues like balance problems (balance), overemphasis on certain points (undue weight), and potential conflicts of interest (COI). We need to look at the whole article to sort this out properly, because these issues are all interconnected.

About the AI thing - I've explained my background in policy analysis. This is just how I approach complex issues. Let's move past that and focus on the actual content, okay? It's important we assume good faith here.

The bottom line is, we're dealing with potential serious stuff - potential COI, neutrality issues (NPOV), and BLP violations. This isn't as simple on the surface as it seems, and they need a proper, thorough discussion.

I appreciate your suggestion about smaller edits. While I believe we need to address the larger issues, I'm open to working with you on incremental improvements too. If you have specific ideas for edits, on where we should start let me know. Let's focus on working constructively together to make this page better. Maybe we could start by identifying one or two key areas where we both agree changes are needed? MmHosssaintech (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to keep writing paragraphs here or are you willing to take action by making an actual edit request to update the article? The serious potential conflicts of interest, NPOV, BLP violations, Balance and undue weight can all be addressed through incremental edits. This isn't as simple on the surface as it seems, and they need a proper, thorough discussion. A thorough discussion will happen w.r.t the edit request that you make. Looking forward to your concise edit request. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Your claim about the legal case being expunged is interesting. What part of the court document you linked definitively ties it to the convictions covered in the article? I.e. How do we know whether your document relates to those offences rather than something else? It’s not clear to me. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz:

Hey, thanks for asking about the expungement. It's a good question, and I'm happy to clear things up.

So, the court document I linked is definitely about the convictions mentioned in the article. Here's how we know:

1. The Wikipedia article says Chahal "entered into a no contest plea to one charge of domestic violence battery and one charge of battery."

2. Now, look at the court order:

• It lists case numbers 243(E)l/M and 242/M
• It says "The Court grants motion pursuant to PC 1203.4."
• And: "Guilty plea is set aside and a not guilty plea is entered. Order For Dismissal signed and filed in court."

3. Those case numbers? They're exactly what you'd expect from a quick Google Search:

• 243(E)1/M is Penal Code § 243(e)(1) PC – Domestic Battery
• 242/M is Penal Code § 242 PC – "Assault & Battery"

4. And PC 1203.4? That's California's expungement law. It lets people withdraw guilty pleas and get charges dismissed.

So yeah, this document is definitely about the same charges the article mentions. It shows they've been expunged, which is pretty important for a biography of a living person.

Let’s also address another important point related to this issue:

There is no justification for highlighting "45" or "47 felonies" in the article, as these were never proven or charged in court. Including such unsubstantiated claims violates several Wikipedia policies:

1. Biographies of Living Persons: We must be especially careful about potentially damaging claims in articles about living people.

2. No Original Research: Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought or analysis. We can't act as a jury or make conclusions not supported by reliable sources.

3. Verifiability: All material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.

4. Crime allegations in BLPs: Wikipedia should not state, imply, or insinuate that any person is guilty of a crime unless and until they have been convicted.

Including unproven allegations or charges in a BLP is a slippery slope. It's like publishing someone's "charge sheet" without due process, ignoring the whole "innocent until proven guilty" principle we're supposed to respect. If we keep the "45 or 47 felony" number, we'd be setting a dangerous precedent. Imagine if we started doing this for every notable person – we'd basically be turning Wikipedia into a jury, which is definitely not our job.

This kind of approach has never been seen before in a BLP, and for good reason. It goes against everything Wikipedia stands for in terms of neutrality and fairness. Plus, let's not forget that the actual misdemeanors have been expunged.

Given all this, I think we need to take a hard look at any mentions of unproven allegations in the article. We should be revising these to make sure we're sticking to Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and fairness, especially when it comes to writing about living people. MmHosssaintech (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)