Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal/Archives/2016

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070909185809/http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com:80/press/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=262635 to http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=262635

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 21 January 2016 (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)

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)

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)