Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Mediation: new section
WP:CoI - payed by Kay Kaur with 200 USD through Upwork, hired for mediation in order to make the article neutral
Line 1: Line 1:
{{connected contributor (paid)|User1=Lingveno|U1-employer=Kay Kaur}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes

Revision as of 18:08, 6 April 2017


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
They're pretty diligent, too. They're almost as quick as the cult zombies who scrub the L. Ron Hubbard article.2601:647:4F00:39CA:5DD2:3C81:4479:E2AC (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

| occupation = Founder of RadiumOne 61.16.236.179 (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: only because this is a duplicate of the request below. No comment on the merits of the request (yet). —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Please change | occupation = Chairman & CEO of RadiumOne to | occupation = Founder of RadiumOne 61.16.236.179 (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: While I'm sure it's true he is the founder, "Founder" is not an occupation; "Chairman" and "CEO" are. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd date

The Diversity Visa law is dated 1990 and came into force in 1995. This is after the date mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.244.24 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The date 1985 is in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.244.24 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's the IP editor's point. How did the subject's parents get a Visa under a program that didn't exist yet? Moreover, the cited source claims the Visa was granted in 1982, and "The next year, on 1982, when their baby was only four years old, the family of Gurbaksh Chahal settled permanently in San Jose...", while this article currently puts his DoB in 1982. The whole thing is fishy.DoctorCaligari (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language "In 1985, his parents received a visa for America through a lottery-based system in India." was originally added by the user Ekcpr, who is now blocked. The part about the visa has been removed and re-added, and then the language "In 1985, his parents received a visa for America through the Diversity Visa (DV) program, also known as the Green Card Lottery, and the following year, when he was four, the family settled in San Jose, California." was added by the IP user 119.12.154.154. No citation was provided, and none of the other page citations offer that claim, either. (And, of course, if they did, they would be wrong, because it's impossible based on the dates. Further, AFAICT, India has actually been an excluded country from that program since the date of the program's inception.) Now, perhaps the original language about "a lottery-based system in India" meant some other lottery, but there aren't any citations that explain or assert that, so I'm cleaning up the language. Sadly, though, the only citations for even the fact that they immigrated and the date of the immigration lead back to the subject of the page. DoctorCaligari (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - the citation does actually say "Mr. Avtar Singh and Mrs. Arjinder Chahal, the parents of Gurbaksh Chahal, received an American Visa in 1982 through the Green Card Lottery." Though, in my opinion, this seems clearly false, I'm not going to remove it, because the source does say that. DoctorCaligari (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characters Involved in Chahal's 2014 Misdemeanor Convictions

Why Can't we mention that the other party involved in Gurbaksh Chahal's recent criminal case (Redacted) [1] Her name has been mentioned in multiple media outlets [2] as the girlfriend who called 911 and brought the police to his home.

She is the one that suddenly went silent, dropped all her allegations against Chahal and out of nowhere hired very pricey SF Criminal attorney for representation. She doesn't even get mentioned? Chahal's reputation is marred and she gets to scurry off into the sunset without any attention when she's talked about many times in the press? [3] This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing brochure or a resume for subject. Encyclopedias go into details!

50.200.126.122 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Scurry into the sunset"? You make it sound like she was guilty of something. She was the victim. Leave her alone. Chisme (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, all disgusting dehumanization and victim-blaming aside, the reason your edit was removed was stated in the edit summary; see WP:AVOIDVICTIM & WP:BLPNAME. If you have an issue with those policies please take it up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and see about having them changed. If you are looking for someone to share your opinion that the victim here should be publicly shamed for ruining the reputation of the man that attacked her, that is not the point of WP. Try Encyclopedia Dramatica. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP 50.200.126.122: Wikipedia's BLP policy applies just as much to talk pages as it does to article space, therefore I've removed the name again as you appear to be using it as some sort of name and shame weapon. This is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, including this page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without naming her, there are some commentaries that whereas Chahal became notorious and public through all this, she was silenced and has hidden. "Scurrying off into the sunset" could also be phrased as "Silenced and ignored as the female victim of a notorious abuser". Editorializing aside the way this played out in public could become relevant to the incident, and thus to the main article. I don't think she has to be named in order to have that discussion here, or in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon has it precisely right.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shontell, Alyson. "Tech CEO Who Allegedly Hit His Girlfriend 117 Times Avoids Jail And Plans A $100 Million IPO". Business Insider - Tech. Business Insider, Inc. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
  2. ^ Aldax, Mike. "DA: Internet mogul hit girlfriend 117 times over a half-hour period". Crime and Courts. The San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
  3. ^ Swisher, Kara. "RadiumOne CEO Gurbaksh Chahal Says He Didn't Do It: "I Didn't Hit Her 117 Times"". Re/Code. Revere Digital, LLC. Retrieved 14 May 2014.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gurbaksh Chahal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an award notable?

Hi. Several of the awards and recognitions here are from organizations that do not have an article in the English wikipedia. If the org isn't notable, is getting the award from them notable? Chris vLS (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think awards that seem prominent and remarkable regardless of the organisation having an article on Wikipedia should be listed. –Aditya(talk) 18:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we want to include prominent awards . . . but what should be the standard, if not the general notability standard for wikipedia? Some of the sources don't look like they would pass that test . . . Chris vLS (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, rather than talk about general stuff... Are you (or anyone else) familiar with Anokhi? I can't tell if it's a big deal or totally obscure? Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anokhi seems like an obscure tabloid. It describes itself as the "premier 'go to' media for all aspects of pop culturallifestyle (sic) & entertainment-based content".[1] Doesn't seem noteworthy to me. –Aditya(talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed Anokhi. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that if neither the giver of the award nor the award in and of itself is notable enough for us to have an article here in Wikipedia, that's prima facie evidence that the award is too minor to use in articles about recipients (see "the coveted Silver Sow Award"). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man, adding a little WKRP into one's day definitely improves it. Thank you, sir. In this case the subject is notable, but not all of the awards are . . . butthe Anokhi one might have been the only dead wood, will check again. Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "About". Anokhi. Retrieved 17 January 2017.

Full protection...

...for 5 days; warnings for all concernend: no personal attacks, no threatening. Please use the this rather neglected talk-page, while refraining from ad-hominem attacks, and concentrate on finding concensus while maintaining a collaborative atmosphere. Give it a go. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at WP:ANI, article is fully protected until April 10, 2017. SportsLair (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. It was a request at WP:RFP; the ANI plays only a small role in my decision to fully protect. Lectonar (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I propose starting the mediation and draft the content which will comply with the Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:BLP, and will be neutral. I invite all involved editors to participate in the discussion and present the points instead of continuing the edit war when the page will be unprotected again. --Lingveno (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=774167971"