Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal

Not very encyclopedic

Currently this article seems to be full of as many "big claims" as possible without regard for appropriate weight (or indeed, verifiability. It's important to remember this is an encyclopedia article, not the blurb for a book jacket. I've done some rewording, but it really needs more good sources so we can tweeze out what is significant enough to publish (things like the school history seem a little trivial for instance). -- SiobhanHansa 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of unencyclopedic content and use of non-reliable sources

I recently made some changes to bring this article into line with some of our policies. Some of these changes have been reverted and some fact tags have been replaced by non-reliable sources. Since most of the editors on this article appear to have limited experience on Wikipedia I thought it might be helpful if I made a detailed explanation of why these changes aren't appropriate:

• is one of the youngest and most successful internet entrepreneurs of recent history. needs to go as it is unsourced and peacockery.
• He went to Independence High School for two years but soon after enrolled in Accel Middle College which allowed him to enter college while finishing high school. Uses a source which is a press release, which is not a reliable source for a claim like this, nor does it show the significance of the claim - which seems, like much of the article, to suffer from puffery (or at least inappropriate emphasis of flattering but minor details).
• He was 18 years old at the time. Also puffery - not necessary because people can do basic math. If this is the sort of thing that many significant commentators have said was notable about Chahal, then it may be worth emphasizing, but until then it should stay out.
• Chahal is also a sought-after speaker, featured at conferences including Red Herring, JP Morgan, Bear Stearns and Ad:Tech. His own company is not a suitable source to use as verification that he is a sort after speaker - this needs to be independent, notable third party claims (and ideally there ought to be more than one).
• Under his leadership, BlueLithium was named one of the top 100 private companies in America three years in a row by AlwaysOn again, BlueLithium is not a reliable source for this claim. Need an independent, third party source wich could be expected to have done apprpriate fact checking.
• received the greatest honor of Top Innovator of the year. The reintroduction of "greatest honor" is peacock wording and unencyclopedic.

I have restored my original Please discuss here before changing this back.

I'm particularly concerned that these changes appear to have been made by an IP address registered to BlueLithium. This article along with BlueLithium and ClickAgents and MingleNow, all suffer from similar issues. Could editors who are in any way related to the companies and people in these articles please check out our conflict of interest guidelines before continuing to edit the articles. -- SiobhanHansa 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced claims and some changes that reintroduced the issues above and similar ones (including unsourced discussion about what Chahal is starting now). This is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional blurb. If independent sources don't find activities or history notable, they are unlikely to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Also, I appreciate that Chahal's youth may seem like a good angle to highlight, but unless that has been the focus of independent assessment by noted commentators, it shouldn't be the focus of this article. -- SiobhanHansa 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos

According to Eileen Koch & Company, publicist for Gurbaksh Chahal, all public pictures are available for use within Wikipedia. SiobhanHansa please do not re-do your change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.110.45 (talk • contribs)

Images must conform to our licensing requirements I will continue to remove images that do not. The say so of an IP editor (or even a long-standing, registered editor unless they own copyright) is not sufficient to establish a license and in any case, permission to use on Wikipedia is not an appropriate license for us. Images must be released by the copyright owner under a suitable free license or be in the public domain. The repetitive adding of images with mis-described licensing is a hindrance to getting a proper free image on Wikipedia and wastes the time of other editors. -- SiobhanHansa 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See also

SiobhanHansa - is there a reason you keep removing my See also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.110.45 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just to keep things in line with our style guidelines. The see also section is for links not already linked to in the article. The ones I removed are already mentioned in the article in context. MingleNow isn't so I've been leaving that one there. See the style guide's annotated article for more on the various sections of a Wikipedia article. -- SiobhanHansa 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning btracking cookies

I have read the passage concerning Vandalism

As I see it this addition is not made to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. It is by no means meant to be crude humor or any of obscenity, page blanking or nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.190.96 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rise in media

This section is a crystal ball that has no reliable secondary sources that verify the assertions. Under the subheading "rise in media" it is also peacock wording. As it reads it looks like a listing of things Chahal's publicist would like to have listed when his name is mentioned. It is not encyclopedic. If there are reliable secondary sources that show Chahal is considered a rising media star my significant commentators we may be able to build a section off those sources. For now I have removed it. -- SiobhanHansa 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Violation by SiobhanHansa

All new edits have been linked to actual sources, including book and his television shows. Please do not constantly delete content about Gurbaksh Chahal as that is a violation of Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.156.17 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The content was not linked to appropriate sources and much of it was entirely unsourced. Chahal's press releases and other media relations are not reliable sources for many of the claims and fail to provide any evidence of significance of the point of view expressed. The two links I include here are to our reliable sources guideline and neutral point of view policy - both significant parts of Wikipedia's actual "rules". There is no Wikipedia guideline or policy that says content must be included if there is a link that says the same thing somewhere. If you think there is good reason to include some of the content I have removed I'm happy to discuss it here - perhaps together could find better sources that could be used for instance. -- SiobhanHansa 20:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You can simply type in his name alongside Secret Millionaire, Oprah Winfrey, and any of the other names I placed and you will come across hundreds of articles that link to those facts as sources. So, why don't you do some work and put the content back in rather than simply deleting it. People like you are ruining the simple merits of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.156.17 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is so simple please do it.

I am not simply deleting because there is no verification - but also because the tone of the text appears to be boosterism and unencyclopedic with undue weight on minor appearances and highlighting petty details that no-one other than Chahal seems to have made an issue of. If there are good sources that cover both the factual side of the issue and the due weight side I would love to see them. then we could edit the piece to be something more encyclopedic. But my research really hasn't brought up stuff that's more than hype and I have asked over several months for decent references for this type of content so am reluctant to spend more of my time finding sources for somebody else's idea of good content. -- SiobhanHansa 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Untrue statement

Statement below is not true, I remember Amitabh Bachan being on Oprah and other Indian Americans such as with the episode on Indian marriages in America which had several other Indian American guests.

• Chahal was the first Indian American on the Oprah Winfrey Show. The other two Indians who appeared on her show were Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil and Aishwarya Rai of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.219.95 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll Add:

The whole thing seems like a lift off a PR agents blurb for this individual. Just because a TV talking head said he was rich does not make it so. I think it should be up to the PR company to prove his wealth. No google search says he is on any rich lists, and these are a lot more independent than a PR statement.

Any proof that his parents only had $25??? Hmmm.. this one makes me feel real uncomfortable. How did they afford to rent or eat or anything? Perhaps it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.154.154 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's a common immigrant thing. There was a rule you could only carry ~$20 in cash per person. Same thing with my family. Doesn't mean you're chronically unemployed and starving. Is puffery the right term? --94.100.23.163 (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I added stuff about BlueLithum which targeted internet users with Banner Ads. My reference was timesonline.co.uk (a more reputable source than a PR issue). Hopefully it won't get deleted.

Look I'm not trying to rail on the guy as such, but rather at least create a balanced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.154.154 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PR Piece

This person is inundating Facebook with ads promoting themselves, and linking this Wikipedia article from their Facebook page as a primary source to prove their notability. I believe it should be deleted, but when I put a notability warning it gets removed.

An appearance on Oprah and making some money doesn't make someone notable. Has Gurbakah made any significant, acknowledged contributions to the field of advertising? Do they teach his methods in business school? Why should this article exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.168.240 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Content removal

IP 12.185.31.254 continues to remove sourced content from the article, mainly about University appearances and such. The content is sourced, so simply pulling it out as unnecessary is assigning value to the material, which is POV. In order to decide whether the material should be removed, an argument for why the material is improper needs to be made here, and then if consensus is reached for the removal, then it can be removed. To continue to remove sourced content without discussion is edit warring. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia content violations

Subject continually removes tags. Do not see what is notable here? Subject's methods do not seem to be studied. Net worth (if applicable) is not notable nor are "flash in pan" television spots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.78.197 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was already tagged for peacock phrases (advert) and tone. You removed those correct tags and added ones that do not apply. How and why does this article need to be wikified? You may not believe he is notable, but according to Wikipedia's notability criteria he is, having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You cannot tag the article as an autobiography as, according to the template usage instructions, only confirmed autobiographies should be tagged. The crux of your argument is IDONTLIKEIT. If you don't agree with the subject's notability you are welcome to nominate the article for deletion, however please stop Tag bombing the article with inapplicable maintenance templates. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

He received "flash in pan" coverage and not notable converage/contribution to his field. Added applicable tags. You can also add your tags and we can discuss. Do not remove my tags without consensus here or edit war.

I have already explained to you why the maintenance tags you are applying should not be used on the page. Instead of discussing each of the points I listed, you simply restored the incorrect templates. The article does not need to be wikified. You are not using 'autobiography' according to the template instructions etc. If you would like to get a third opinion, please do so here, but to continue to add inappropriate tags to shed a negative light on the subject of the article when you clearly are not neutral is disruptive. If you don't believe he is notable, then nominate the article at WP:AfD, but please stop tag-bombing the article with maintenance tags that do not apply. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that if this article continues to be edited by IPs to remove sourced content and add inapplicable maintenance tags, I will request that the article be semi-protected so that only registered and auto-confirmed accounts can edit. There are several outlets for dispute resolution, and edit warring under various IP addresses in order to blank content and add inappropriate tags is not one of them. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ponyo edit war

Ponyo edit war -clearly working with subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.31.254 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not the same as working with the subject. WP:AGF, WP:BRD, and don't edit war. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ensuring that articles meet WP:BLP and WP:V standards does not equate to working with the subject, if it did I'd be collecting cheques from the thousands of living people on my watch list, and I'd be editing from somewhere much more exotic. I've requested that this article be semi-protected to prevent further disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to disagree -must sort out on discussion page. Quit removing my page. I have requested you be stripped of editor function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.31.254 (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A few points from your message above that require clarication:

• Could you please point me to the policy that states I don't "get to disagree" with editors who are :violating our WP:BLP policy and acting in a disruptive manner?
• Curious also as to which page you are referring to when you write "quit removing my page" above?
• The request to have me stripped of my editing rights is...where exactly? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject has not made notable contributions to field, added tag, let's discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.89.170 (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you're back, and on the road again I see . The subject meets WP:GNG by a long shot, and your continued assertion otherwise has become disruptive enough that the article (and the others you target) have had to be semi-protected from IP editing. So, before you add the extraneous tag back, how do you believe that he does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? Because as it stands you simply appear envious or jealous. (Yes, there is a distinct difference). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

File:G Chahal 003 0074.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:G Chahal 003 0074.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Content removal

As Chahal was born in India and came to the US on a Visa, you need to show (through reliable sources)that he no longer has any Indian citizenship. Simply removing the "Indian" from "Indian-American" without providing any sources for verification or discussion is disruptive. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations and BLP policy

Please ensure any information regarding the current allegations regarding Gurbaksh Chahal are compliant with BLP policy. At this point the any news being reported makes it clear that these are allegations only - if official charges are laid and reported in reliable sources then the information can be presented in the neutral fashion and given the weight that it deserves based on discussion and consensus. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

He's been officially charged with 47 felonies. He allegedly "hit and kicked his girlfriend 117 times over a half-hour period." He's out on $1 million in bail. He's a prominent figure and the prosecution has been covered by the S.F. Chronicle, Examiner and tech outlets. I don't see why this information isn't being included. This profile is already full of puffery. These are public facts about a public person. Unfortunately, the article is now locked down. 98.207.172.163 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC) JustAInterestedCitizen

The key word is "allegedly".--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No the key thing is that he's been officially charged. He's appeared in court. It's been reported in reliable sources. Both SF Gate and SF Examiner have reported pieces. As you yourself wrote "if official charges are laid and reported in reliable sources then the information can be presented". Including the information would completely comply with BLP, while keeping it out would not. 98.207.172.163 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)JustAInterestedCitizen

In order to get additional feedback it may be helpful for you to express your opinion at this open thread. There are more eyes on that noticeboard than on this page.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to leave this out. As stated by 98.207.172.163 he's been officially charged, appeared in court, and pleaded not guilty to the charges as reported by reputable sources (SF Gate and SF Examiner). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.128.234 (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Article links that Gurbaksh Chahal was arrested on domestic violence charges in August 2013:

• http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/attorney-for-internet-mogul-gurbaksh-chahal-call-domestic-violence-charges-overblown/Content?oid=2540544 (says that he was released from custody after posting $1 million bail and that police say cameras inside his bedroom captured the alleged attack on the woman)
• http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Internet-mogul-pleads-not-guilty-to-assault-4719376.php
• http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/08/gurbaksh_chahal_internet_millionaire_pleads_no.php
• http://jezebel.com/famous-young-entrepreneur-also-allegedly-skilled-at-dom-1078700548
• http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/08/10/san-francisco-internet-ceo-who-appeared-on-oprah-pleads-not-guilty-in-assault-on-girlfriend/
• http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/sf-entrepreneur-charged-domestic-violence/nZKKj/
• http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/09/sf-entrepreneur-charged-with-domestic-violence/all/?print
• http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_23829773/sf-entrepreneur-charged-domestic-violence

64.20.12.142 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous users keep deleting the allegations I added (sourced properly, and written as allegations in compliance with policy). I recommend semi-protecting the page / section where they are located. Maxcherney (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2014

Someone needs to add the fact that he plead guilty to these domestic violence charges and someone also needs to ban the PR agent that keeps removing this information 50.136.214.96 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Article about this Wikipedia article

The San Francisco Appeal of 19 April 2014 asserts that Chahal's PR firm has been editing this article: "With complaints ranging from the well-known phenomenon of paid PR editing, to questions of the article’s legitimacy in the encyclopedia altogether, the recent effort to annihilate mention of Chahal’s crimes included anonymous Wikipedia editors with San Francisco based IP addresses, and an account that was reportedly operated by Eileen Koch and Company, an LA based public relations firm. The account “Ekcpr” — a short form the PR company now uses in its branding — has been editing Chahal’s page since 2007, but most recently began to delete all text referencing (the domestic violence) crimes Chahal had been accused of. The only edits the Ekcpr account has made on Wikipedia are to Chahal’s page."

Is something like this worth mentioning in the article? Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding reporting, in articles, about edits made to articles? Chisme (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No, per WP:NAVEL we try to avoid covering Wikipedia too much within Wikipedia. Wikipedia biographical articles are about people, their life and times, and careers. Whatever happens to the Wikipedia article about a person is typically not relevant to the person's life, so it's not part of telling their life story. The best place to mention a news piece about an article is here on the talk page, where you can use the {{press}} template. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a complete misstatement. WP:NAVEL has nothing to do with any of this (even if you don't want to read the whole page, it's made clear in the nutshell). If there is a coverage of the article itself in reliable secondary sources then it absolutely should be included in the relevant section.

The real issue is that there is no section to add that info to, because this article is being actively cleansed by editors working with or for the subject. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is also being actively edited in WP:SPA fashion by the author of that particular news piece. Anyway, this is exactly what WP:NAVEL is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about various topics, not an encyclopedia about the creation of articles on WIkipedia. That style guideline is often given as the reason why we don't add controversies about an article to the article itself, and why that template exists. Controversies are, however, discussed on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with your point, but not because of WP:NAVEL. I don't think the secondary source is reliable or really-all-that-secondary; I should have been more clear with my point and not negated the comment based on one aspect I didn't agree with. My point was really that WP is about anything that is notable, even if that notable thing is a WP article. WP:NAVEL is basically saying that notability for the article itself does not equal notability for the subject of the article, and vice versa. It also warns against including criticism of the article itself, or saying anything that equates to "This is a Wikipedia article", both of which don't apply. This is a campaign of deliberate editing to create a biased view of the subject and his related companies, which is similar to some entries at List of Wikipedia controversies, or what happened to Anita Sarkeesian. An action taken by the subject of an article to change that article to ignore what has become the primary media focus of that person could certainly be notable, it just isn't here.

Editors may link to that page when they make that point, but that does not mean that page supports that point. But that is moot, because as you've pointed out the only ref is not a reliable secondary source, so it is not notable information. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I won't argue a moot point, and what you say makes a lot of sense. We have enough trouble around here agreeing in the first place, no point arguing about why we agree :) - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. It probably shouldn't be mentioned in this article. We should be aware, however, that PR agents have attempted from time to time to manipulate this article. Chisme (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And again today,[1] another SPA. I'm guessing all this will die down now that the legal process is over and it isn't part of the local news cycle. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2014

Please change "(born July 17, 1982) is an American internet entrepreneur" to "(born July 17, 1982) is a convicted domestic batterer and American internet entrepreneur" because it better reflects the principal reasons for which the subject is known.

Hawksfan1000 (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)