Jump to content

Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crystallizedcarbon (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 3 July 2024 (→‎Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

July 2022

I edited this page some years ago and was reminded of the article's subject by this recent article [1]. It seems like there's been quite a wrestling match with paid editors since then. One result seems to be that the article no longer lists the battery incidents in the first paragraph. This seems out of alignment with the reading and weight given by WP:RS. Looking at the top Google news hits from WP:RS, these incidents are in the headline describing his notability [2][3], provided as immediate context about him [4], or they are the subject of the article [5], [6][7][8][9][10], although there are also articles that cover his relationship without mentioning this part of his past [11],[12]. So, basically, wikipedia is fairly rare in simply portraying him as an entrepreneur, with the battery incients in the fourth graph. It doesn't seem like this was a decision made by the unpaid editors, but rather some trailing aftermath of the tangle with the paid ones, but I might be wrong about that. It seems appropriate to align the article with the sources again, including the high-profile relationship. I'll make the change in a moment, using the language that I think was consensus for a while. Of course, open to discussion... Chris vLS (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is closed. The charges do belong in the lead. The efforts from the paid editors were to remove them from the lead. Personally I do not see a need to reopen this issue just to move it to the first paragraph. In the same way, I defended including his relationship with Bajwa in the article, but also, I do not think that it should be included on the first line of the lead. To make those changes you would need to reach a consensus here. My advice would be to let the giant sleep. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2022 (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]
I see that they were blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Can't say I'm surprised given the extensive prior efforts to turn this article into a puff piece. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gurbaksh is not a sikh

first of all, a lot of the content was added by User:Faizal batliwala, who is now banned.

this editor seemed to focus entirely on Gurbaksh, adding numerous claims that do not have any citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&diff=prev&oldid=1037720344

this one claims Gurbaksh is a sikh, without any WP:RS. i dispute this claim.

there are many Hindus these days who have "singh" in their middle name and are born in punjab.

in fact, it seems a lot of people are called sikhs if they are recent converts.

a prominent example of this phenomenon is Harpal Singh Kumar. now, i should emphasise i'm not making calls on who is a Sikh or not.

the fact is Sikhs are an ethnoreligious group. being born with the surname kumar strongly suggests this criteria is not met.

in the case of gurbaksh, there are no sources at all. in fact, the only source proclaiming him as such, ironically enough, is his own:

https://bnn.network/world/india/bnn-founder-gurbaksh-chahal-targeted-with-death-threats-amid-criticism-of-khalistan-movement/

this does not meet any of the required criteria to withstand moderation. it must be removed.

i'd go further and say mr kumar, while wearing a turban (some jains do this too, by the way), is not a sikh either.

people are ignoring the ethnoreligious component of being sikh. just because you convert (something we discourage, by the way), doesn't mean you are one.

i am sure mr kumar has done many good things in his life ("fighting cancer" etc), but we do not need, nor have we ever wanted, people representing us who are not actually one of us.

you cannot just say you are something that your genealogy cannot support. gurbaksh is an easy example of this.

@K.e.coffman: someone needs to clean this page up and probably restore it to the form before mr faizal batliwala probably edited it on gurbaksh's behalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.51.113.29 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of BNN?

BNN looks like another of his ventures, I came looking for his name after seeing him as founder there. Not sure if it's big enough to be mentioned, but being a news business, I would expect some details of his association. 103.51.113.29 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a separate article for BNN Breaking here DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Crystallizedcarbon, there is no mention of criminal charges in the infobox whatsoever in past discussions from what I can tell. If I missing something, please point me in the right direction of archived discussion about this very point. Also, the standard Template:Infobox person contains an item for convicted criminals only and requires WP:RS. That would all be satisfied and would be entirely germane here without any violation of WP:CRITS. - Amigao (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the word 'infobox' does not appear once in either of the two archives for this talk page, so you are correct that this has not been discussed. Also, WP:CRIT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the attention to detail regarding the infobox, but I believe this discussion needs to be placed in the broader context of the article's overall balance and adherence to Wikipedia policies. I've started a comprehensive discussion about the multiple issues affecting this article here: Critical BLP Issues.
Regarding the specific point about criminal charges in the infobox:
1. The case in question resulted in a misdemeanor plea, not a felony conviction, and has since been expunged (court document available here). This raises significant BLP concerns about the appropriateness of including it in the infobox at all.
2. Comparing this article to other BLPs with more serious legal issues (e.g., Robert Downey Jr., Martha Stewart, Chris Brown), we see that none of them include criminal charges in their infoboxes, despite some involving felony convictions and prison time. This suggests that including such information in an infobox for an expunged misdemeanor would be unprecedented and likely violate undue weight guidelines.
3. The persistent focus on this expunged misdemeanor, especially in such a prominent position as the infobox, appears to violate several Wikipedia policies, including:
4. The article already covers this incident in detail in the main text. Adding it to the infobox would further emphasize an aspect of Chahal's life that has been legally expunged and is not representative of his overall career or current status, potentially violating coatrack principles.
5. The repeated attempts to add this information to the infobox, despite it being an 11-year-old expunged misdemeanor case, could be seen as a form of hounding and potentially violate harassment policies.
6. Including such information in the infobox would likely fail the significant coverage test, as it's not a defining characteristic of the subject's notability or current status.
I strongly urge both of you to review the broader discussion I've started at Critical BLP Issues, which addresses this issue along with several others affecting the article's balance and accuracy. Your input on these wider concerns would be valuable in working towards a more comprehensive and policy-compliant article that adheres to Wikipedia's core principles of neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Amigao: You are correct. In the status quo version that took a lot of effort to achieve there was no mention of the criminal charges in the infobox. It was added afterwards as a bold edit. That is the reason why it was not discussed directly. What we did reach a consensus over, was the information belonged in the lead but that it should be limited and that no separate section should be created, since it would be undue weight. Same applies to including it in the infobox. That field should be used for people mainly notable for their criminal activites. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical BLP Issues: Addressing Imbalance and Multiple Policy Violations in Gurbaksh Chahal Page

I am opening this thread to address serious concerns about the current state of this article. After extensive research and discussions with @Crystallizedcarbon: and @TheSandDoctor:, I believe the article violates several Wikipedia policies and does not meet the standards for a balanced biography of a living person. The current state of the article not only violates multiple Wikipedia policies but also potentially harms the reputation of a living person, making this a critical BLP issue that requires immediate attention. First, I want to clearly state that I have no conflict of interest regarding this subject. My sole motivation is to ensure this article adheres to Wikipedia's policies, particularly those concerning biographies of living persons. Advocating for neutrality and balance does not equate to having a COI. In line with Wikipedia's assume good faith policy, I believe all editors involved have been acting with the intention of improving the article, even if the result has led to imbalances. Key concerns include:

1. Neutral Point of View and Balance

  • The article focuses excessively on a single controversy (the domestic violence case) while minimizing recent achievements and contributions.
  • There's an overemphasis on negative aspects with inadequate coverage of positive contributions, including intellectual property, other business ventures, and philanthropic activities.

2. Undue Weight and Due Weight

  • Disproportionate focus on an 11-year-old legal issue, evident in four sentences in the lead, a separate section in Personal life, and an additional three-paragraph "Domestic violence and battery conviction" section.
  • Undue prominence given to BNN Breaking, which itself has accuracy and neutrality issues.
  • Minimization of significant aspects of the subject's career, recent activities, and achievements, such as:
  • Minimization of significant entrepreneurial achievements:
    • ClickAgents, a groundbreaking venture that made Chahal a millionaire at 18, is relegated to a single paragraph despite its innovative nature and $40 million acquisition.
    • BlueLithium, which was sold to Yahoo! for $300 million and was recognized as one of the most disruptive innovations of 2006, is covered in just two paragraphs, with half the space dedicated to a tangential social network project.
    • These early successes, which established Chahal as a notable figure in the tech industry, are not given appropriate weight in the current article structure.
  • Omission of relevant personal achievements:
    • Chahal's book, "The Dream: How I Learned the Risks and Rewards of Entrepreneurship and Made Millions," is merely mentioned in a "Publications" section at the end of the article without any context or discussion of its content or impact.
  • This imbalance in coverage violates the core principle of Wikipedia's due and undue weight policy, which states that 'Wikipedia articles should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.'

3. Biographies of Living Persons

  • Potentially damaging claims based on outdated information, particularly regarding the expunged case.
  • Use of sensationalist details for shock value, violating the principle of treating living subjects with respect.
  • Failure to include the 2021 expungement of the legal case, despite publicly available court documents that can be easily found through a simple Google search (Court Order).

4. Recentism and Comprehensiveness

  • Failure to update with recent developments (expungement, ProcureNet's role in COVID-19 response, Gravity4's achievements, recent philanthropic activities).
  • Inadequate coverage of significant career aspects, including ProcureNet's impact and numerous awards and recognitions.

5. Coatrack

  • The article uses Chahal's biography as a vehicle to extensively discuss controversial topics rather than providing a balanced overview of his life and career.
  • Specific issues include:
    • Disproportionate focus on an 11-year-old legally expunged case.
    • Gravity4 section prominently features an unsubstantiated lawsuit claim, overshadowing actual business activities and achievements.
    • Dedicated BNN Breaking section focuses solely on controversies and links to a separate problematic Wikipedia page.

6. Verifiability and Reliable Sources

  • The article fails to include verifiable information about the expungement of the legal case, despite available court documents.
  • Some claims, particularly in the BNN Breaking section, rely heavily on limited sources without adequate corroboration.
  • The article contains demonstrably false information, particularly regarding TrimFeed:
    • The BNN Breaking section claims "Trimfeed was closed after The New York Times informed Chahal they were doing a report on BNN."
    • However, TrimFeed remains active, as evidenced by recent articles on their website (TrimFeed source).
    • This false claim violates Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources policies, as well as the fundamental principle of accuracy.
  • The inclusion of such easily disproven false information raises serious concerns about the overall reliability and neutrality of the article's content.

7. Conflict of Interest and Battleground Behavior

  • There appears to be a pattern of coordinated editing between the Gurbaksh Chahal page and the BNN Breaking page.
  • Editors such as Amigao (talk · contribs), Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk · contribs), War Term (talk · contribs), Belbury (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs), and Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs), among others, have been consistently adding and emphasizing the 11-year-old controversy and BNN Breaking on the Gurbaksh Chahal page while also contributing significantly to the BNN Breaking page.
  • A review of the edit history over the years reveals a concerning pattern. Certain editors, including Chisme (talk · contribs), Lepricavark (talk · contribs), and others, have made consistent efforts to remove neutral or positive aspects of Chahal's history while simultaneously adding back sensationalist details related to the 11-year-old legal issue that has been expunged, as well as adding unsubstantiated claims about a lawsuit regarding Gravity4, while minimizing details about the company itself.
  • This pattern suggests a potential conflict of interest and possible battleground behavior, as these editors appear to be using multiple pages to push a particular narrative about the subject.
  • Such behavior violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral editing and assuming good faith, raising concerns about the motivations behind these edits.
  • This connection between the two pages and the consistent pattern of biased editing further reinforces the Coatrack concerns, as it suggests a coordinated and long-term effort to emphasize certain aspects of the subject's life across multiple Wikipedia articles while minimizing or removing others.
  • A more comprehensive review of the edit history may reveal additional editors engaged in this pattern of behavior.

8. Ongoing Manipulation and Disruptive Editing

  • Recent attempts to add "Criminal Charges" to the infobox, despite being reverted twice by Crystallizedcarbon (talk · contribs), demonstrate a continued pattern of manipulative editing.
  • Amigao (talk · contribs), who has already been identified as having a potential COI due to their edits on both the BNN Breaking and Gurbaksh Chahal pages, has initiated a separate talk page thread to push for the inclusion of these charges in the infobox.
  • Lepricavark (talk · contribs)'s edit history for this page shows a singular focus on spreading information about the 11-year-old case, raising concerns about their neutrality and adherence to WP:BLP guidelines.
  • These recent actions further exemplify the ongoing issues with this article:
    • Attempts to reintroduce and emphasize outdated, expunged legal issues
    • Disregard for previous editorial decisions and consensus
    • Potential coordinated efforts to maintain a negative bias in the article
  • Such behavior continues to violate Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, biographies of living persons, and recentism.
  • These persistent attempts to add 'Criminal Charges' to the infobox for an expunged misdemeanor, when other BLPs with more serious criminal histories do not have such listings, appear to be a form of hounding and potentially violate harassment policies.

For comparison, Wikipedia articles on public figures with past legal issues, including those more severe than Chahal's, consistently handle these matters briefly and maintain focus on the subjects' careers and achievements. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's policies on balanced coverage and due weight. Consider the following examples: Felony Convictions and Serious Legal Issues:

  • Robert Downey Jr.: Despite well-documented substance abuse and multiple felony convictions, his page dedicates only a small portion to these issues. The majority focuses on his career achievements, including his comeback and success in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
  • Martha Stewart: Convicted of multiple felonies in 2004, including conspiracy and obstruction of justice, Stewart served five months in federal prison. Her Wikipedia page covers this concisely, focusing primarily on her business ventures and media career.
  • Tim Allen: His 1978 arrest and two-year federal prison sentence for drug trafficking (a felony) are covered in one paragraph, with the bulk of the article focusing on his career.

Domestic Violence and Related Incidents:

  • Chris Brown: Despite a highly publicized domestic violence case involving Rihanna in 2009, Brown's Wikipedia page maintains a balanced approach. The incident is covered in about three paragraphs within a broader "Legal issues" section, providing basic facts without graphic details. The article predominantly focuses on his music career and achievements.
  • Mel Gibson: His 2011 no contest plea to a misdemeanor battery charge is mentioned briefly in a "Controversies" section, without dominating his article.
  • Tommy Lee: His 1998 six-month jail sentence for assaulting Pamela Anderson is covered succinctly in a "Legal troubles" section.
  • Terrence Howard: His arrest and guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to a domestic incident are mentioned concisely in a "Personal life" section.

Other Notable Cases:

  • Hugh Grant: His highly publicized 1995 arrest is mentioned in a single sentence within the "Personal life" section.

Importantly, none of these articles include "Criminal Charges" in their infoboxes, despite some cases involving convictions, guilty pleas, or extensive legal troubles. This consistent approach across Wikipedia for handling legal issues in biographies of living persons stands in stark contrast to the current state of Gurbaksh Chahal's page. The disproportionate focus on Chahal's expunged misdemeanor charge, particularly its prominence in the article and attempts to include it in the infobox, clearly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view, undue weight, and biographies of living persons policies. This discrepancy underscores the need for a thorough revision of Chahal's article to bring it in line with Wikipedia's standards for balanced and fair coverage. Additionally, the related BNN Breaking page raises several concerns:

  • Notability: It's questionable whether BNN Breaking meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, given its short lifespan and primary notability stemming from controversies rather than significant contributions to journalism or technology.
  • Neutral Point of View: The page fails to present a balanced view, focusing almost exclusively on controversies and negative aspects.
  • Coatrack: The article appears to use BNN Breaking as a vehicle to discuss controversies related to Gurbaksh Chahal, rather than focusing on the website itself.
  • Accuracy: The page contains factual errors, such as claiming TrimFeed was shut down when it remains active.
  • Verifiability: Several claims are not properly verified, including the assertion about TrimFeed's shutdown.
  • Due Weight: Undue prominence is given to certain sources without presenting counterarguments or alternative viewpoints.
  • Reliable Sources: The article relies heavily on a limited number of sources for significant claims, without adequate corroboration or presentation of alternative perspectives.
  • Conflict of Interest: The page appears to have been created and primarily edited by the same group of editors who have been adding negative content to the main Gurbaksh Chahal article, suggesting a potential coordinated effort to emphasize certain narratives across multiple pages.

These issues with the BNN Breaking page further contribute to the imbalance in Chahal's portrayal in his main biography. Based on the issues identified, I propose the following actions to bring this article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies: 1. Rebalance the article in accordance with neutral point of view and due weight policies, giving appropriate coverage to recent achievements and contributions while reducing the disproportionate focus on past controversies. 2. Include information about the 2021 expungement of the legal case, using the available court documents as a primary source, in line with BLP and BLPCRIME guidelines. 3. Reassess the coverage of BNN Breaking within this article, ensuring it's proportionate to its significance in the subject's career, as per undue weight policy. 4. Expand sections on the subject's career achievements, in accordance with comprehensiveness guidelines, particularly: a. Recent ventures like ProcureNet and its role during the COVID-19 pandemic b. Detailed information about Gravity4, including its achievements, innovations, and market impact c. Information about other current ventures such as RedLotus d. The subject's contributions to intellectual property, including patents he has created 5. Address the coatrack issues by refocusing the article on the subject's life and career rather than tangential controversies. 6. Improve sourcing to include a wider range of reliable sources that cover recent developments and achievements, in line with verifiability policy. 7. Remove unsubstantiated claims, particularly those related to lawsuits or controversies that lack reliable sources or verifiable outcomes, in accordance with BLP, BLPCRIME, verifiability, due weight, recentism, and PROPORTION guidelines. 8. Expand the coverage of the subject's philanthropic activities and awards received throughout his career, particularly the work of the Chahal Foundation, in line with balance guidelines. 9. Review the editing patterns on both this page and the BNN Breaking page to address potential conflict of interest issues, particularly: a. The consistent removal of neutral or positive content by certain editors b. The repeated addition of sensationalist details about the expunged legal case c. The addition of unsubstantiated claims about lawsuits while minimizing factual information about companies like Gravity4 10. Ensure that the lead section provides a balanced summary of the subject's life and career, giving due weight to his entrepreneurial achievements and recent activities, as per lead guidelines. 11. Address the misuse of the current Extended confirmed protection status, which appears to be facilitating biased editing rather than preventing disruption:

  • Request a review of the page protection status by uninvolved administrators to ensure it's not being used to maintain a biased narrative.
  • Implement additional oversight measures, such as requesting page protection that allows for more neutral editing, or consider 3RR exemptions for editors attempting to add well-sourced, neutral content.
  • Encourage involvement from uninvolved editors with a history of neutral editing on controversial BLPs to help maintain balance.
  • If necessary, propose a Request for Comment to establish a clear consensus on the article's content and structure, ensuring adherence to NPOV and BLP policies.

12. Consider requesting a discretionary sanctions alert be placed on this page to discourage further disruptive editing and ensure adherence to BLP policies. 13. Maintain the current infobox structure to avoid violations of infobox guidelines and BLP policy, ensuring no undue emphasis is placed on past controversies or expunged legal issues. 14. Restructure the article to follow a more standard layout for biographies, ensuring a chronological flow and appropriate sectioning that doesn't overemphasize any single aspect of the subject's life or career. 15. Establish a system for regular review of the article by uninvolved editors to ensure continued compliance with Wikipedia policies, particularly BLP and NPOV. 16. Expand and restructure the coverage of Chahal's early entrepreneurial successes: a. Provide more detailed information about ClickAgents, its innovative aspects, and its impact on the ad-tech industry. b. Dedicate a separate, more comprehensive section to BlueLithium, detailing its growth, achievements, and eventual acquisition by Yahoo!. c. Move the brief mention of MingleNow to a separate subsection or paragraph to avoid diluting the focus on BlueLithium. 17. Include a proper section on Chahal's book: a. Add information about the book's content, reception, and any impact it had on aspiring entrepreneurs or the tech industry. b. Consider moving this information to a more prominent position in the article, possibly under a "Writing" or "Publications" section in the main body of the text. 18. Remove demonstrably false information from the article, particularly: a. The claim that TrimFeed was closed, when it is demonstrably still active. b. Any other claims that can be proven false through readily available evidence. c. Implement a more rigorous fact-checking process for all claims in the article, especially those related to recent events or ongoing business ventures. These changes are necessary to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, balance, and accuracy in biographies of living persons. If any editor has concerns about these proposed changes, please explain your objections in terms of specific Wikipedia policies. Thank you for your consideration and input. I look forward to a constructive discussion on improving this article. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My prior experience with this article makes it impossible for me to believe your claim that you don't have a conflict of interest. Also, how much of this did you write yourself, and how much is AI-generated? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEPRICAVARK: Thank you for your response. I appreciate your engagement in this discussion.
However, I'm concerned that it doesn't address the substantive policy issues raised in the main discussion and instead makes unfounded assumptions. This approach seems to conflict with several Wikipedia principles, which I am a strong proponent of as per neutral point of view and Wikipedia policies:
  • Assuming Good Faith: Your dismissal of my statement regarding COI goes against this fundamental principle.
  • Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia: Focusing on speculations rather than addressing content issues detracts from improving the article.
  • No Personal Attacks: Implying dishonesty about COI status or writing methods could be construed as a personal attack.
  • Stick to the Facts: The response doesn't engage with any of the specific policy violations or content issues raised.
I urge you to reconsider this approach and instead focus on the substantive issues raised about the article's compliance with Wikipedia policies. If you have specific concerns about any points I've made, I'd be happy to discuss them in detail, with reference to relevant guidelines and policies.
Regarding your specific points:
1. COI: I've clearly stated I have no conflict of interest. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, per assuming good faith and burden of evidence, my statement should be accepted.
2. Authorship: The content of my post is entirely my own, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you have specific concerns about any part of it, please address those directly.
I look forward to a constructive dialogue focused on improving the article in line with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, balance, and accuracy in biographies of living persons. I respectfully ask that you show the same consideration, respect and good faith that I've extended to you in my initial post and this response. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your engagement in this discussion. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. And don't bother responding with any more AI-generated gobbledygook. Oh, and by the way, exactly when did you have a discussion about this with TheSandDoctor? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article in its current state violates the BLP policy and cannot be improved, then nominate it for deletion. If you want something to be added or removed, make an edit request. Posting a wall of text achieves nothing. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira:
Thank you for your input. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment for several reasons:
1. Wikipedia is not limited by paper and General Notability Guideline: The subject clearly meets notability criteria. The issue is not the article's existence, but its current imbalance and policy violations. Deletion would be contrary to Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive, accurate information about notable subjects.
2. Bold, Revert, Discuss: Given the article's history and current protection status, starting with a comprehensive discussion is the appropriate approach. This aligns with the "Discuss" part of BRD, especially for contentious articles.
3. Preserve, Merge, Split: The detailed analysis provided aims to preserve valuable content while addressing issues, which is preferable to deletion.
4. Consensus building: The "wall of text" you refer to is a thorough analysis intended to foster informed discussion and build consensus for improvements, in line with Wikipedia's collaborative nature.
5. Complex issues: The problems with this article are multifaceted and interconnected. A simple edit request would not adequately address the systemic issues identified.
6. Neutral Point of View: The current state of the article appears to violate this core policy. A comprehensive review is necessary to restore balance.
7. Disruptive editing: The analysis highlights patterns of potentially disruptive editing that require community attention and cannot be resolved through individual edit requests.
The goal here is not to make unilateral changes, but to engage the community in a thorough review and improvement of the article. This approach is in line with Wikipedia's policies on collaboration and continuous improvement.
I welcome constructive thoughts on the policy violations and content issues raised in the main discussion. Your input on how to address these concerns constructively would be valuable. 203.95.220.74 (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=1232374457"