Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal

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)

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)