Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Lingveno (talk · contribs) has been paid by Kabir Singh. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. disclosure

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

I agree with Chisme. This debate is already closed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Recent edits

Here are the explanation I provided for my edits:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]