Jump to content

Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Back Taxes Source is Not Credible

Hi Editors,

I wish to bring to your notice an irregularity and misinformation appearing on this WP page.

"As of 2019, Chahal owed the State of California $1,706,117 in back taxes"

As you have extended-protected the article, I am unable to make the edit.

It would be very kind of you if you can remove the extended-protected tag for a while and see if there is any negative activity this time.

Or else it would be great if you could remove this line altogether.

You can check on the internet, there is not a single article that makes this claim about back taxes this apart from a random and unsourced/unreferenced article on a non-trustworthy blog californiaglobe.com.

Just one search on Google and you will be able to see this is not true at all and the article has been published baselessly just to malign his image.

Looking forward to hear from you.

Regards, Hardeep Hardeep.pathak (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I got the impression the purpose of the article was to describe prominent people on the list, not "baselessly malign their images." This Wikipedia article has a long history of attempts to white-wash its subject. This is why the protection tag was attached. Chisme (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chisme, I am just challenging the source and the credibility of that one line on back taxes. Can we put in a tag [unreliable source?]? Hardeep.pathak (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
No. It's a reliable source and you can tell Mr. Chahal that we are neither removing it nor tagging it as unreliable. Lepricavark (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Weighting suggestion

@Winged Blades of Godric and Lepricavark: Would it be possible, after the full protection is lifted, to add more weight to his career in the lead? I think it's fine to mention his convictions there (as they seem to be very notable in regards to his notability) but think it would be wise of us to not make it seem like that's half of his personal history. Thoughts? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

His fame derives from being a millionaire, who went rogue. It's hard to find any significant biographical coverage of him (not of his company), predating the domestic violence fiasco. ∯WBGconverse 12:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the domestic violence section can be tightened up some without losing any of the critical information. The first incident is a bit too heavy on the play-by-play. The second incident can be slightly tweaked as well (just say he was sentenced to a year and $250,000 fine which was upheld on appeal, released after six months). PC07's preferred version doesn't have too many changes in the details of the companies, other than whitewashing the Gravity4 section (removing that he resigned? Really?). The article mentions that he wrote a book, but nothing else - when was it written would be nice, at least.
The big issue when PC07 returns is going to be around the order of the article. Their preferred version buries the domestic violence completely which is a non-starter. I think the general order now flows well and highlights what he has gotten the most press. I think at least some of the awards PC07 added are possible adds, especially the E & Y. Let's be honest, if those had never happened, Chahal would still be a notable person. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I would not necessarily object to another sentence in the lead describing his career, but I am extremely wary of minimizing the coverage of his domestic abuse. I agree with Ravensfire that some of the awards, especially E&Y, may be notable, but they should only be added after talk page discussion. Preferably, that discussion will not include PC07, as their involvement would certainly be counter-productive. Contrary to the bogus charges made by PC07 (and their POV-pushing predecessors), I am not seeking to prevent this from being a neutrally-written article. However, I am strongly resistant to working with any so-called editor who is clearly here to push a pro-Chahal POV. Lepricavark (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Incorporated some of the ideas; a neutral piece is hard to achieve for someone whose coverage primarily stems from domestic abuse. ∯WBGconverse 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mysteries Abound: Dating in Encyclopedia?

Does who someone is dating belong in an encyclopedia article? The article says, "In October 2019, Chahal began dating Rubina Bajwa, a punjabi (sic) actress, the sister of veteran actress, Neeru Bajwa." If Bajwa was his wife it would merit a mention in this article. However, Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be People magazine or a such-like gossip rag. I remind editors this is an encyclopedia. Who he is currently dating is not germane. Chisme (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If the other person is not notable, then per WP:PUBLICFIGURE they should not be included. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I note that all photos of Rubina Bajwa and Chahal on Instagram have been removed. The Indian press got it wrong. He's not dating her. Why were the photos taken down from Instagram? Meanwhile, User:Meeanaya, who edited this article to say the subject was dating Rubina Bajwa, has been banned from Wikipedia for "undisclosed paid editing, meatpuppetry and covert advertising." I note as well that someone named PunjabCinema07 joined Wikipedia on November 15, wrote a draft article about Rubina Bajwa, and abruptly disappeared. Two days later blocked user Meeanaya promoted the draft article to a real article. (The article has since been demoted to draft status: Draft:Rubina Bajwa.) Mysteries abound where Gurbaksh Chahal is concerned. Look out for the meatpuppets. Look out for paid editors. Beware of covert advertising. Chisme (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Chisme, I didn't know looking up figures on instagram would qualify as reliable editing method for this page. As far as your concerns regarding Rubina Bajwa and the subject dating, I believe you can Google and find many reliable sources that confirm this relationship. Stop vandalizing this page. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I was right. Mysteries do abound. PunjabCinema07 has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. You can add his name to the list. Here's hoping Rubina Bajwa is in good health. Chisme (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Gravity4

Since Gravity4 failed, while the other three companies were successful. Why dedicate an entire paragraph to the lawsuits? How is this relevant and BLP standards? If we are to list every lawsuit a company has on wikipedia, I think each wikipedia page would 10X longer. How is this relevant to subject's BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How does a business being successful cancel out criminal convictions? Do tell. Also feel free to peddle your PR elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of sources it seems we've forgotten to include this which goes into great detail about the attack. Praxidicae (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that PunjabCinema07, the user who made the suggestion to cut short this part of the article, has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipeida. Therefore I don't think it's necessary to take up his suggestion. Chisme (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
At least he (they?) stopped shrieking about vandalism. Interesting. Different style than before.-- Deepfriedokra 06:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

There are a lot of defaming and biased information on this page, I believe these changes are made in an attempt to degrade that this person. I want the editor to make some changes; <

  • big>Remove "He has been convicted twice for domestic violence and battery crimes, in 2013 and 2018.[1][2][3][4]" because it is written in an attempt to deframe this person
  • Remove "Personal Information" Section because it does not have any personal information but some degrading and defaming content.
  • Remove "before being fired, due to his conviction for domestic violence.[13][14][2]" for the same reason.
  • Same statement is used again and again to degrade and defame this person, so I request editor to make these changes.
  • And if its possible to remove protection, because it was applied by the third party and by the person who's page it is. M.A.K. Writers (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. These changes will require you to gain consensus in order for them to be implemented. BTW, I'm the last one who applied protection to the page.El_C 12:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, please read up on WP:NPOV - Wikipedia articles cover all aspects of the article subject, the good and the bad. It is absolutely correct to say this person has been convicted of those crimes - it happened. It is absolutely correct to say they were removed from their positions because of those convictions and probation violation - it happened. You're asking for a white-wash of the article, removing all negative information. Sorry, this isn't their personal website where such actions are common. There is no defaming going on to state what happened. Ravensfire (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
NB, M.A.K. Writers is a paid writer who may or may not have been paid. Well, maybe a small amount.-- Deepfriedokra 06:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

UPE

When the next one appears, please give them a Welcome and a {{subst:Ds/alert|blp}}. I'lll be watching this page as well. Maybe that will avoid a repeat of the recent unpleasantness we've been subjected to.-- Deepfriedokra 06:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and a Template:PAID.-- Deepfriedokra 06:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

Please add the following, this is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ekcpr (talk Ilovewiki3 (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ilovewiki3:That didn't take long. As it turns out, "014-04-19T06:23:13 Geni talk contribs block blocked Ekcpr talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (PR firm trying to whitewash what appears to be a client's biography)". Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm a bit cynical about your request.-- Deepfriedokra 07:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done I share Deepfriedokra's cynicism, but quite apart from that there is no request for specific changes. (The template explains what should be included for an edit request to even be considered.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
He sent me an email. I responded on his talk.-- Deepfriedokra 08:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Awards

Awards are typically mentioned, iff the awards are sufficiently covered in reliable sources, to the extent of deserving their own articles. At any case,

  • Sify.com is not a RS and neither I do see any intellectually independent coverage about Light of India Awards" in reliable mainstream publications.
  • Yahoonews has republished a PR piece and does not qualify as a RS. Now while Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award has a page (which ought be actually deleted, going by the sourcing), I am seeing no SIGCOV in reliable MSM, either.
  • Businesswire republishes PR feed, thus making it an unreliable source. And receiving anything other than a honorary PhD from an university is almost-always non-notable.
  • Yahoo!Styles ain't a RS, most-probably.
  • We need secondary coverage in reliable sources about his philanthropic activities; not over blogs of RSs having nil editorial scrutiny. [Check archived snaps of the link]

∯WBGconverse 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As posted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, The Sify reference is a reliable source written originally by the Indo-Asian News Service. the Entrepreneur artilce is also a reliable source. I could see no indication in the article of it being a self publication or not having been subject to editorial control. The author was a deputy editor of that publication (see here). I do agree with Winged Blades of Godric that other sources from Yahoo! or Business Wire are questionable and should not be used. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, IANS is a news-feed service. As laid out over here the Indian feed services employ a low-cost workforce of near-nil journalistic calibre and they relay a huge spectrum of information from random press-releases to downright trivial stuff happening in some remote corner of India to genuine news-worthy content. MSM's typically exerise their discretion in picking out the valuable news from their feed (thus adding the editorial scrutiny, needed for the Wikipedian definition of RS) and that's why the reputation of the publication medium matter, when evaluating a feed-news.
Pray point me to Sify's editorial process and allied details. Or reliable sources which mention Sify to be some kind of journalistic venture.
The article at Entrepreneur was originally located at entrepreneur.com/blog/224248. Years back, the magazine did some strange stuff merging all content w/o leaving any effective indicator of gauging editorial scrutiny, that was invested in the process. ∯WBGconverse 18:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: you should not have removed the sourced content without first gathering a consensus.
You first removed both sections on 2 December with this edit. When it was reverted the next day you should have followed WP:BRD and tried to reach a consensus in the talk page. Instead you engaged in edit warring with Joydeep ghosh:[1], [2],[3].
After I restored it you reverted me as well.
I explained in talk why Entrepreneur and the Indo-Asian News Service are both RS and how the author of the Entrepreneur article was one of their deputy editors. Presenting an article behind a paywall from a competing publication that claims that the IANS is biased politically, even IF we asume that to be true, does not mean it's not RS per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Sify publishes their own news articles and they also republish articles from reliable sources like IANS. I removed the content that was referenced by other questionable sources and restored the properly sourced content one more time, asking you specifically on the edit summary, to please follow WP:BRD and take it to talk, if you did not agree.
You chose to continue edit warring and removed the information sourced by IANS for the fifth time on the base of your doubts of it being RS and said in the edit summary "Please gain a consensus in your favor when you are disturbing a longstanding version". What longstanding version? Please follow your own advice. You did a bold edit removing two sourced sections from a previously stable version, you did justify your reasons at the talk page, so that was perfectly fine, but when you were reverted, you should have followed your own advice and gather a consensus instead of engaging in edit warring. "Winning" and edit war without gathering a consensus, does not create a longstanding version. Please restore my last edit to follow WP:BRD and then we can discuss here if it should be removed. I have no problem in removing that information if we decide it's not suitable for the article, but if that is the case, we need to do it the right way. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
He was a paid-spammer (see block) and BRD does not apply.
I will be glad if you stop defending strawman arguments. I did never say that IANS (which is not ANI) is a biased source. Also, Caravan is one of the most hallowed long-form-magazines in India and is certainly not in a competing business with IANS. You might also need to read WP:PAYWALL. Linking our article about Sify multiple times does not magically produce their editorial policy or helps us in identifying it as a RS/MSM, as distingysihed from news-aggregator-platform.
I have also not removed the Entrepreneur piece. ∯WBGconverse 09:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: I believe you are misguided. I will continue to invest some of my time here, but my objective is no longer the article. At this point I think the best way I can help the project is by trying to help you. You are a very experienced editor with great contributions to this project and without a doubt a net positive, what you do and how you do it sets an example to less experienced editors. I see that Joydeep ghosh was blocked as a paid-spammer, but before the block I believed you should have asumed good faith and followed WP:BRD instead of engaging in edit warring. I also see no justification for continuing reverting, specially the second revert when I came in to restore the sourced content.
Sify is not just a news aggregator, it also writes its own news articles as you can easily check. The main point is that the source of the referenced content you removed (19 NRIs honoured with Light of India awards) was published by Sify, but the source was Indo-Asian News Service. Claims that a leading news agency is not a reliable source based on another news article, even if you are right, is not the way to go. As you can see at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Reliable_source? We consider IANS to be a reliable source.
I am asking you to reconsider, I think that more important that whether the content is restored or not is that we should set an example by following the rules that we give to ourselves in the project. If you still disagree with me, I think it may be justified to ask for guidance from more experienced administrators at the noticeboard. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The relevant question is whether the Light of India award, the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year, and Pace's "Leaders in Management Award" are notable enough that they would warrant a Wikipedia article. As the answer to that is "no", I see no reason to include them. (Of course it doesn't help that the edit that introduced the information also lied about Chahal getting a honorary doctorate...) As for sify.com – it doesn't matter whether they also write their own material, given that the reference in question is a press release, found in various other publications. A PR is a PR. The archived talk page discussion that was supposed to show that IANS is considered a reliable source doesn't actually show that, either. --bonadea

contributions talk 09:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Many news sites publish content from news agencies like IANS, those articles are generally considered reliable sources. That has nothing to do with PR by companies themselves. The fact that other sites also published the article from IANS does not make it less of a RS. To the question at the reliable sources noticeboard with an article in a site that also used IANS as a source: "The article in question is from the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS), so I'm guessing it would be considered reliable although not necessarily the entire site" The answer was "Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking." You are free to post that question again to the noticeboard. I am convinced the answer will still be the same, but if I am wrong, the issue would be settled. As far as whether the information should be still be removed, even if it is properly sourced, is something that should be debated. The award is included in six other BLPs. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that having a Wikipedia article is a requirement to be able to cite an award if it is properly sourced. Cornell University and others find it notable enough to include it their brief bios (example). Whether it should or should not be included can be debated, but my point is that WP:BRD and not edit warring is the right way to resolve editorial disputes. This edit should be restored until a consensus is reached. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't take very well to being patronised, so please try not to do that. I stand by everything in my previous comment, and see no point in repeating my arguments – anybody can look up the previous discussion for themselves and evaluate it. That is much better than repeating selected parts of it here without any context. (I would really appreciate it if I was not pinged here – thanks! The talk page is on my watchlist.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the patronizing, it was not my intention. Noted about the ping. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea:, I didn't lie about subject's honorary degree. But, it seems anything noteworthy I tried to put keeps getting deleted. Here's a link from SF Chronicle: https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Internet-star-Chahal-getting-honorary-doctorate-3190862.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs)
That is a different source – the one used in the original edit did not say anything about a honoris causa doctorate. In the link you provide now, the claim is made in an interview with Chahal. However, the awarding university seems to have forgotten about it. Perhaps it was the headline writer who was confused – the leadership award Chachal received was given out at a "benefit dinner" (whatever that means) in connection with the ceremony where four different people received honorary doctorates. --bonadea contributions talk 06:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea:, So what would these articles from the same URL you used from Pace.edu (the URL you sent), https://www.pace.edu/news-release/gurbaksh-chahal-founder-and-ceo-radiumone-to-deliver-keynote-address-pace-university%E2%80%99s and https://news.blogs.pace.edu/2010/05/04/pace-university-awards-honorary-doctorate-to-internet-star/? MrRight2020 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That he is not in the list of honoris causa doctors is undeniable. That is the official documentation from the university. A press release from the same university said in 2010 that he was receiving a h.c. Misprint, misunderstanding, who knows? It is not our job to guess what happened. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, let me try to be less unclear. The linked discussion that is claimed to show that IANS is a reliable source took place in 2009, and the two quoted extracts are the entirety of that discussion. Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects does not, to me, say anything at all about IANS – it is a general statement of that editor's opinion about newswires, eleven years ago. If nothing else, a lot has happened with Wikipedia guidelines and policies in the last eleven years; in addition, IANS was not specifically analysed or discussed. "I guess it would be considered reliable" and "Generally [this kind of source] is reliable for most things" is all that was actually said about it. WP:NEWSORG states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis". That leads us back to the "Light of India Award" – what kind of coverage does that have in reliable sources? It is certainly a common principle (although perhaps not enshrined in policy) to avoid adding awards and honours that are not themselves notable, even if a reliable source should mention that an individual has received them. The Light of India is an award "instituted by Remit2India, a Times Group online money transfers unit" in 2011. Chahal received the award in 2012. I find no sign of any more recent award functions, so I'm afraid I can't agree that recieving this award is a relevant piece of information to include in any BLP. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't take my comments in the wrong way, I am not trying to patronize, I am just giving you my understanding, I have being wrong many times in the past so feel free to correct me.
As far as I can see, the answer in the noticeboard was in response to an article sourced by IANS, so the answers were given in relation to that particular news agency.
WP:NEWSORG first states that "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". In my opinion, the "case by case" does not apply to an uncontroversial fact (unless you have reason to believe that the subject did not receive the award) reported by a news agency. I hope that you will agree with me that it does not make sense to post a new question at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether the IANS article is a reliable source for the fact that the subject received the Light of India Award as the answer seems obvious.
The point I am insistently trying to make is that if a deletion of content in an article that was sourced by a news agency is reverted, WP:BRD should be followed and the sourced information should be restored until a consensus is reached.
As far as notability, the Light of India Award is listed in the BLP's of Vinod Dham, Lisa Ray, Soumitra Dutta, Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni and Narendra Patni. The award is also cited within bios in publications by Cornell University or the National Academies Press. I don't see a policy based reason that justifies the removal of that sourced information without a previous discussion, specially afer being repeatedly reverted and asked to follow BRD. I did not know that it had being instituted by a private company or that there is no evidence of more recent award functions. I still think that it does not hurt to have it listed in this article as most other BLPs that also got the award do. Regardless, I don't think that the removal would be that great of a deal, if we reach that consensus. What I think is setting a bad example, is to do it by edit warring (repeatedly removing the edits to restore). I think that we should respect the rules that we give ourselves. Restoring it and getting some more input would be the right way to go in my opinion, If at the end consensus is to delete I would be happy to do it myself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

Frankly, I feel that whole lurid section needs to go. I cleaned it up a little. What remains is supported by sources.-- Deepfriedokra 09:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am amazed to know that T&F is publishing tabloids, these days.
In any case, a core point of the case (as reported in about 4-5 reliable sources) has been about his influence to the extent of the victim refusing to attend the trials but then, you probably count all local US dailies as tabloids. Which's a bit weird, to say the least. So, please explain your edits.
Also, if you are accusing me (who re-wrote the entire section) of integrity violations, please call it out directly and provide evidence. What does What remains is supported by sources. allude to? ∯WBGconverse 13:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We could always nominate the article for AfD – if that section is removed, that's pretty much the claim to notability (as someone who had never heard the name until the article was mentioned on one of the boards a few days ago, I think it's clear that it is the convictions that make him notable, as he's a run-of-the-mill businessman otherwise). Anyway, I have no major problem with your cleanup, but I wonder about the removal of the information about the victim not attending the trial as she was concerned for her safety – that's supported by the immediately following Examiner reference from 23/4 (with the headline "Safety concerns keep ex-girlfriend from SF tech CEO’s probation hearing"). Since the source was kept as reliable and it seems to be a key point of information, I don't see why some part of it wasn't kept. (Her nationality might not be relevant – that's a BLP issue and it's better to err on the side of caution as she isn't notable.) Just my two öre. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: What? Who's accusing you of anything? The content I removed is tabloidesque, regardless of the source. The whole section reads like a tabloid, but I only removed the most tabloid without damaging the sense of the page. What should it allude to? That was a disclaimer for my benefit. The remaining content is supported by sources, sorry if I'm unclear, it's just less tawdry than what I removed. And yes, despite your revision, it remains-- tawdry. @Bonadea: It is a mess. And if all the subject is notable for is their domestic violence, that's pretty run of the mill too. It's tawdry. And I think it makes him even less attractive as the subject of an encyclopedia article, now that you put it that way. If anyone feels anything needs to be readded, please feel free. If anyone can make the content less tawdry, please fill free. If anyone wants to nominate for AfD, I thing it improve the encyclopedia. I done my part. And I think that it is better to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned. -- Deepfriedokra 19:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Deepfriedokra. I agree, and find it rather disconcerting that WP is being used as a coatrack for what you rightly referred to as tawdry and a mess. I tagged the two sentence lead but after reviewing the sources and content of this article, I could not find anything that was either encyclopedic or notable to warrant inclusion. The BLP fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:CRIME, and as a BLP for an entrepeneur, it fails minimum qualifications. I even looked for something he did that we could possibly merge to or redirect, and RadiumOne was all that showed up. It is another nope as it was bought out by RhythmOne which has been tagged as promotional, so I've decided that AfD was the best option for this article. Atsme Talk 📧 22:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am dismayed and appalled that Chahal's attempts to whitewash his article might actually be successful. And not because of his paid lackeys, but rather because established members of the community played right into his hands. No, no, no. If we're going to have an article about this man, we will not reduce his abusive history to a mere footnote. Lepricavark (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I did not play into anyone's hands, Lepricavark, and I doubt Deepfriedokra did, either. I recognize BS when I see it, and while I strongly disapprove of any form of abuse, this guy's 1st domestic dispute was a misdemeanor charge and I found no corroborating RS to confirm the marketing hype about his companies (which no longer exist) so now we're talking about lasting encyclopedic value and there is none. This BLP is nowhere near the level of encyclopedic notability when it comes to mention of domestic abuse, such as with Ray Rice or indicating a pattern that might lead to a Ted Bundy. WBG has already discounted a few of the sources that published unverifiable information, including the guy's revenue and net worth. My concern is that we may be going beyond our own PAGs if we claim this BLP passes WP:GNG or WP:N and may be inching into WP:RGW territory, and that is not what WP is about. I have removed this article from my watch list and will not be commenting here any further. Atsme Talk 📧 03:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Having spent years combating UPEs and blatant white-washing efforts on this article, I will not be lectured on what WP is about. You have your opinion, I have mine, and we can leave it at that. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I assume that you have not read the sources.
San Francisco Chronicle noting in 2016:- Before the 34-year-old crumbled, Chahal was a model of young and flashy entrepreneurial success. As a fresh multimillionaire in 2008, he appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s show, where he recounted selling his first company at age 18 for $40 million and his second at 23 for $300 million, landing him a leadership role at Yahoo.
Another report noting in 2016:-Multimillionaire tech mogul Gurbaksh Chahal — once one of San Francisco’s Internet entrepreneur darlings ....
A Forbes report in 2015:-Gurbaksh Chahal, the 32-year-old embattled and often self-aggrandizing CEO... ∯WBGconverse 06:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Just as a note, while I did mention nominating the article for AfD above, I have no particular wish to see it deleted – what I do feel strongly about is that if there is an article about the guy, his domestic abuse convictions have to be discussed as that's the main reason newspapers write about him. I happen to think that he does meet GNG for that reason, but I don't think it is a problem that his notability is discussed in AfD, since I also think that any other arguments for notability are a bit tenuous, and I could probably be persuaded in either direction as far as his business notability goes. Anyway, given that it looks like a very clear keep, there is no way he can use paid editors to have the article deleted after that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the domestic battery part was given undue weight (sorry, I don't know the link for that). It was a (repeating myself, sorry) a run of the mill crime with a run of the mill VOP. As with our conditional unblocks, some offenders violate and get snapped back for it. To me, it's just a big meh. Yes, it should be mentioned. (Sorry, Mr Chahal , you did it, it happened, it got reported in RS, no reason to leave it out.) BUt it should have been less prominent.-- Deepfriedokra 17:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Notability of The Subject

There are some folks that have spent quite a bit of time focusing on the domestic issue of subject. The BLP fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:CRIME, and as a BLP for an entrepreneur with no lasting encyclopedic value. But, I want to bring to light how this page looked before his domestic issue even came to light. I understand some of the links may be outdated and can likely be updated with other RP sources, but there is a lot of noteworthy content that is notable enough that should be included back in to this BLP for it be fair, neutral and balanced WP:NPOV. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=604520117

Would appreciate your thoughts, Crystallizedcarbon, Atsme, Deepfriedokra, Coffee?

PunjabCinema07 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and I don't involve myself with them. I've questioned the notability of the subject and the content of the article. The AfD, as often happens, is not going in a direction that coincides with my views on notability. I'm a deletionist sojourning in a land of inclusionists.-- Deepfriedokra 23:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you did a good job with your previous edit. Given your an admin here that people respect, we might need you to help the other editors out and lead by example. Otherwise, they will just turn it back into a Ted Bundy or Charles Manson style piece.

And perhaps it is fitting that they do. The parallels, while hyperbolic, are fitting. Hell, I done my bit. Consensus went against me.-- Deepfriedokra 06:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotta consider the source here, sir. Gotta consider the source.-- Deepfriedokra 17:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

New editor

Y'all, we have a new editor interested in this page. Please remember to be nice and WP:AGF. Please see his(?) talk for my efforts at discussion.-- Deepfriedokra 19:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Link? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Ilovewiki3. (They've run off.) But another has come.-- Deepfriedokra 10:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep it in my watchlist, specially after reading that Chahal's PR firm had been editing this article in the past. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

w should install a revolving door. (snigger idiotically into my cup).-- Deepfriedokra 11:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Crystallizedcarbon, Wasn't that article 6 years ago? The way this article has changed to its current state, I don't think his PR firm has been doing a good job at all over the last six years. This way it reads now is horrible. MrRight2020 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
MrRight2020, I know! It reads like it's a fairly close summary of his life with all the bad stuff! Those PR firms are supposed to get rid of all those unpleasant facts! Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

They keep coming back and getting blocked. That's because they wind up trying to whitewash the article, and/or not declaring their PAID status and being found out, and/or getting blocked for making personal attacks. Then their changes get reverted. Not that I think the article is not in need of improvement--it is, but the whitewashers generally try to rewrite to Mr Chahal's specifications and using not WP:reliable sources. The most recent and most egregious of the possible WP:UPE editors was just site banned by the community for personal attacks and threatening off-wiki action against anyone who opposed his changes. There's more, but you get the drift. So long as user's adhere to the Five PILLARS and the process of discussing and WP:CONSENSUS building, they are welcome to edit any of our 5,000,000 articles.-- Deepfriedokra

Deepfriedokra, Ravensfire, Crystallizedcarbon I know can't we all just get a long and just improve this article? MrRight2020 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrRight2020: The problem is, "improve the article," means different things to different people. Thats why WP:CIVIL, WP:DISCUSS and WP:CONSENSUS are so important. A wise man once said, "It's alright for us to disagree, so long as we are not disagreeable".-- Deepfriedokra 17:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, well deep fried okra, also means many different things in different cultures. :) MrRight2020 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

∯WBGconverse 12:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ucBjDQAAQBAJ Pg. 253
https://www.salon.com/2014/05/06/gurbaksh_chahal_has_lost_his_job_his_girlfriend_has_lost_more/ ∯WBGconverse 06:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric

(Redacted) AruneekBiswas (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

extravagant

Seems a little-- extravagant-- and not neutral. Can we take it out?-- Deepfriedokra 15:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you think would be a better term? The sourced article explicitly references his 'flamboyant and extravagant lifestyle'. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds pretty negative to me rather than encyclopaedic. He was young and rich. So what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.56.118 (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Negative content is also encyclopedic. Would you argue Adolf Hitler is not encyclopedic because it's largely negative? By that logic, nothing will ever be neutral if we did not allow negative content as it would force positive/glowing only. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Relevance??? What is the relevance of putting extravagant without the sole reason to put down subject? As far as Adolf Hitler example, I’m not even going to comment there. Don’t compare an entrepreneur with a person who caused a genocide of 6 million Jews. Get a grip! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.56.118 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Well you're the one who said that it can't be neutral if we have negative content. Your logic is flawed if you think that ignoring several dozen + reliable sources writing about his domestic abuse scandal and only putting in flowery, puffy praise of him is what neutrality is. And since you don't like the Hitler example, let me give you another: Charles_Graner#Domestic_abuse, Floyd_Mayweather_Jr.#Controversies. Praxidicae (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
no, your logic is flawed. The DV mention is in his intro, RadiumOne, and the specific DV section under personal life. But, the question here was to use the word “extravagant.” I agree with Deepfriedokra initial thought about removing it, since it’s NOT neutral and tone is negative. This is after all Wikipedia not MTV Cribs!
Yes because the bulk of the meaningful coverage about him is his supposed "fall from grace" due to the fact that he kicked his girlfriend 117 times and then violated his probation.[1]Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/12/gurbaksh-chahal-silicon-valley-domestic-assault-sentence
I guess we can choose to do agree. He was quite notable before and is still notable now. You want a negative hit piece to just focus on his domestic issue, that is up to you. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.39.156 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The answer is how do reliable sources, especially the really good in-depth articles describe things. If they use the term, probably Wikipedia should as well. Ravensfire (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Ravensfire The source literally says extravagant & flamboyant lifestyle. See here. Praxidicae (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, Yup, I checked that before posting :). I'm comfortable with the phrase, but hopefully this will educate our clearly independent and not at all a sock with a COI/UPE understand how Wikipedia works. (Oh, and I left a note on Yunshui's talk page ...) Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
if you want reliable sources saying things from a neutral perspective try the links I shared with WBG. Also, your analogy doesn’t flow. To go from Adolf Hitler, to a celebrity boxer to a person known for war crimes. Like wow bro, get a grip! p.s. always assume good faith. I mean I’m not at all calling you trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.56.118 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The links you so graciously shared have been deconstructed by other editors below. You have nothing further to say here, bro. Especially since you're just recycling the same talking points that the other whitewashing accounts used. You might try a little harder to not be so stinking obvious. Unless, of course, you're happy to just collect a paycheck without actually accomplishing anything (which is totally fine with me, btw). Lepricavark (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Awards (2- see above with same title)

I am new here, so please go easy on me here. I was just wondering why these possible Awards, Recognization and Achievements were removed. Can either Deepfriedokra. and CrystalizedCarbon gave their input what is misiing to get this content on the page?

I found this list from the official website: https://gurbakshchahal.com/awards/

Chahal was awarded the ‘Top Innovator of the Year’ award in 2006. In the year 2010, he was named as the Best Young Tech Entrepreneur by the Business Week. Other publications such as mensXP.com, and X51, also listed him as India’s Most Influential Businessmen of the Year.

Gurbaksh has been honored with the Leaders in Management Award and was given an honorary degree in Commercial Science by the Pace University.

In the Year 2011, Under30CEO honored him as the Most Influential CEO. Gurbaksh Chahal also featured in Forbes Greatest Risks.

In the year 2012, Gurbaksh was awarded “People’s Award for Excellence in Business Leadership” as well as “Amrapali Award for Entrepreneur of the Year,” by Light of India Awards 2012. He also emerged as iMedia’s Top 10 Hottest Digital Marketers, in the same year. He came across as one of the Top 40 Entrepreneurs Under 40 in San Francisco Business Times. In 2013, he also received the esteemed Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award.

He was felicitated by DSGMC in recognition of his achievements as Global Entrepreneur at an event organized to mark 550th birth anniversary of first Sikh Guru – Sri Guru Nanak Dev.:

<edit-conflict> Hello @MrRight2020: Please read our policy on reliable sources. To be suitable for inclusion the content must be referenced by independent reliable sources. The subject's own website and press releases are not independent. With that in mind please filter you previous list. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty sure all of them do that and are all reliable resources. Can we get someone to go through which awards we can to start include? MrRight2020 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@MrRight2020: Have you read WP:RS already? Do you understand it fully? Some of the sources listed above are sourced from press releases. Those are not valid, please try to find alternative ones. You should also eliminate awards sourced only by the giver of the award (unless the award is clearly notable) if you can not find alternative independent reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
As an example, the 2013 Ernst & Young Entrepeneur of the Year Award is notable, but the Yahoo Finance article is sourced from Marketwired which publishes press releases. this article from Businessinsider is an example of an independent reliable source that could be used instead.
The Light of India Awards 2012: Amrapali Award for Entrepreneur of the Year is currently under discussion. The rest, at first glance and in my opinion, do not seem fit for inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Thanks for doing the lifting.-- Deepfriedokra 21:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you as well! @Deepfriedokra: Happy to help . --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I will look at finding alternative sources for the awards. At a quick glance, The honorary degree and Pace award is also prominent. MrRight2020 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this list these all look like noteworthy awards that should be included as they are included in other BLPs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRight2020 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

MrRight2020 has been blocked as confirmed sock of a blocked user so I recommend that only the Ernst & Young entrepreneur of the Year award is restored since I found a proper source already in the article instead of the previous press release reference, as well as the Light of India Award per WP:BRD. This last one could be later removed if we reach consensus for it, (see duplicate awards section above). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Now that the recent paid editing is confirmed (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_indefinite_CBAN_for_M.A.K._Writers), if any additional editor thinks we should not include the Light of India Award I'll personally give up on restoring it, BRD or not. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
MrRight has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of PunjabCinema. Since he wasn't courteous enough to bring honest to the table, I don't know why we should do him the courtesy of considering whether these fluffy awards belong in the article. Chisme (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue though is not Mr Chahal or the integrity of his minions. It is about our own integrity. If RS can be found to support the awards, or other content favorable to Mr Chahal, it would be best to have it. If I had the time, energy, endurance, and focus to find such, I would try. Alas, what brain cells remain are not sufficient. Where's the WP:ARS when you need them.-- Deepfriedokra 17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
If there are no objections, tomorrow I will restore the two I reviewed and consider properly sourced. I will also rearrange the current ones chronologically. Deepfriedokra is right, I looked at the Forbes claim, but it is just an article on big achievers sharing their greatest risks and the BusinessWeek article is not an award either, it just lists the subject in a list of hot young tech entrepreneurs to watch. That information might be included elsewhere in the article, but does not belong in the awards section. after scanning the titles and given recent events, I don't feel too inspired at this time, to dig into the remaining ones. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, this sock has managed to present fair many RSs and I have incorporated them. I am still not seeing RSs in support of LOI, though.
Also, Chahal's page notes In the year 2010, he was named as the Best Young Tech Entrepreneur by the Business Week. Assuming he's talking about the Bloomberg publication, this's probably significant but, where's the source. ∯WBGconverse 05:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. likely this. Where's the slide of 25 businesses. ∯WBGconverse 05:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
[4] ∯WBGconverse 05:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
A comment by an admin on whether the article from Sify, that reposted a Indo-Asian News Service newswire, was (or not) a reliable source for the fact that he received the Light of India Award would be welcomed. To try to settle the issue, I have restored it (hopefully for the last time) using another two unrelated reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Someone has restored the awards on the basis that there was consensus, which I don't see but my question is more about the MensXP "mention". It seems trivial at best and should be removed as it's just trying to pad the article. Praxidicae (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I personally would have no objection to the removal of the MensXP mention. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, agreed, and done. Ravensfire (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk page protected

I have semi-protected this talk page for a week, due to disruption from multiple IP address sockpuppets of previously blocked accounts. Any other admin who disagrees with my rationale, feel free to unprotect. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: thank you, an excellent idea. ——SN54129 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
But now where will we get our daily dose of empty threats from incompetent spammers? :( Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like I've been missing out on all the fun  :) ——SN54129 18:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Not really . Thank you Anachronist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you thank you thank you thank you!!! Ravensfire (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with all the above and I wouldn't mind a bit if this protection was made indefinite. Lepricavark (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Indef-protecting talk pages is Just Not Done on Wikipedia. We should encourage constructive comments on improving articles, if possible. Protection can always be re-instated after it expires, if disruptive activity resumes. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No, we do not indef protect talk pages. It's a big step just to semi a talk page temporarily. However, I have it on good authority that Mr Chahal has expressed his unhappiness over this page on Twittter, so we can expect a certain amount of lashing out from those who only know his side of the story. BTW, I complained earlier about the tawdriness of this page. IMO, it looks much less tawdry. Congratulations and thanks to you all for making WIkipedia better.-- Deepfriedokra 02:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware that indef protection would be an extraordinary step, but I remember that the article itself was once full-protected for an entire year [5]. This isn't a normal situation. With regards to the ill-advised tweet, I do wonder if it has ever occurred to Chahal that while his PR campaign hasn't been particularly successful, his antics may eventually attract unflattering media attention. I doubt he would be pleased if his self-serving efforts resulted in detailed coverage of his whitewashing campaign, with the result that it warranted mention in our article. That would be a delightful bit of poetic justice. Lepricavark (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: We actually have an article about the phenomenon: Streisand effect. I recall when it happened with Stella Artois and now their efforts to whitewash their Wikipedia article are permanently recorded in that article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Chahal's dispute w/ W isn't in the article. Should it not be? There is the reliable source.-- Deepfriedokra 11:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, if it gets widespread attention from this most recent campaign, perhaps. We know that white-washing happens on a regular basis here, usually without any COI/Paid declarations (terms of use be damned!). While it's not in the article, any reader who happens to look at the talk page will quickly come to the conclusion that Chahal is pretty ashamed of his past and is trying to run and hide from it, not stand up and deal with his obvious issues. It also shows he's not the most honest person out there, willing to stoop to deception and lies to cover up easily verifiable facts. Ravensfire (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Failed attempt at promotion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I saw a previous post and thought some of the suggestions and citations were valid for @Winged Blades of Godric: to include in his next revision.

  • 1.) Summarize Gravity4 to one or two sentence, it is too bloated and not encyclopedic. His other previous business ventures (ClickAgents, BlueLithium and RadiumOne are clearly more notable) and Gravity4 is given too much weight. Also if we are to report every litigation of every company on Wikipedia, we'd have to re-write a lot more pages, so consider dropping that as that doesn't add any value.
  • 2.) The domestic violence is mentioned in intro, RadiumOne, and the special DV section. I recommend removing the bloat and trim the DV section further to one or two sentences.
  • 3.) Insert his Honorary Doctorate degree back, as I agree with your argument that "source clearly mentioning of the (afore-assumed) revocation to rebut this RS or else we are engaging in OR". Since there is no revocation, we need to post it based on all other credible sources stating it happened or someone should just call up the university and ask!
  • 4.) Insert the Oprah, Secret millionaire, ExtraTV appearances back into personal life, these originally appeared on the page as:

On October 23, 2009, Chahal appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss his life and business journey. In his interview, Oprah Winfrey introduced him as "one of the youngest and also the wealthiest entrepreneurs on the planet Earth.

Chahal appeared on an episode of the Fox TV reality show Secret Millionaire, where he went undercover in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco and gave away $110,000 of his own money.

On January 8, 2009, he was featured on Extra TV as America's Most Eligible Bachelor.

Chahal has also been a frequent guest lecturer at many universities including: Stanford University, Pace University, London School of Economics, University of California Berkeley, Indian School of Business.

6.) Consider adding these onto the mentions/recognition

7.) Since you were the one that removed this article from the main space, perhaps make your changes and add it back into main space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rubina_Bajwa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.56.118 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Latestly and buzzingchandigarh are nowhere near being a reliable source and should probably be blacklisted. Praxidicae (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad you are fine with the rest of the references, look forward to @Winged Blades of Godric: next edit.
Gee, I wonder who this IP might be ... surely not the most recent sock ... Ravensfire (talk)
Always assume good faith. Gee, I wonder who you might be....surely not a paid troll...
  • Well. I see 15 discrete sources listed there. Most of them crap. You might get away with the YouTube vid (only because it's the official Stanford channel). But the rest seem to be unreliable to say the least. Oprah—really? The NYT is superficially a RS in this case, but this is an interview with the subject, so it counts as a SPS. See WP:SPS. Extra-Tv is just a passing mention. See WP:PERSISTENT. PACE, again, comprises a single small paragraph, so not sure what its purpose would be. Its second iteration—the roundtable itself @evideo—is also a primary source. See WP:PST. Same for UCTV, a primary source as it's yer man speaking. The Firstpost article reads like a press release, but there may be inconsequential details that could be used. As a contributing source, Lecturelist is so bald it needs a wig. The Lastly piece is clearly sponsored material (as it confesses itself!) Buzzing: is this really anything much more than a coffee-table tabloid? Might be an RS for who's having an affair with who, but as a BLPRS?
    There is no longer an "Awards and other self-promotion" section to add anything to, as it is pointlessly unencyclopedic. See WP:CRUFT.
    Fundamentally, I don't see most these sources passing WP:BLPRS: few are reliable and most lack independence. Neither do I see a necessity for including the proposed material; none do much more than confirm that he had a particular gig on a particular day, or was mentioned in a particular paper. Realistically, so what? It's what entrepreneurs do in the early 21st century, and what the rest of the population wants to do. But Wikipedia has policies which dictate what we are not, and, specifically, that we are not a collection of every single fact that can be dredged up on a particular topic.
    In my experience, if you have to dig this deep for anything approaching a reliable source?—then they don't exist.
    Utilising all the incredulity I can summon up, I'd say this is a blatant attempt at making Wikipedia a vehicle for the subject's self-promotion, which is not only against policy, but also the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use.
    All the best, ——SN54129 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 Agreed. Can we put the final nail in this requests coffin? Perhaps a "not done" on this edit request? Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
<edit conflict> I think it's best to ignore the re-posting of material that was added by previously blocked puppets. As far as the awards section, it has been added after a long process of consensus gathering and reference checking by various editors (including myself) that have nothing to do with the documented PR efforts or the revolving door puppets. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae Hiding this kind of repeated requests seems like a good idea to help save previously uninvolved editors from wasting their time with likely puppets. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It now takes very little time before they are blocked. 182.77.56.118 is blocked already. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem Crystallizedcarbon, but I have no idea why you are so concerned with a tiny section of the article which, on its own, is doing an excellent job at encouraging the puppets. All the best, ——SN54129 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a long story Serial Number 54129, if you have the time and patience you can read the long sections above for an explanation. I and others agreed that: "The issue though is not Mr Chahal or the integrity of his minions. It is about our own integrity. If RS can be found to support the awards, or other content favorable to Mr Chahal, it would be best to have it.". I think that puppets now should be easy to spot and neutralize.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't visualise a situation in which I would get involved in such a contentious article without reading the entire talk page for context; but thank you. ——SN54129 14:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A history

Can I suggest that the phrasing in the lead of "a history of committing" is not a neutral. This phrasing leaves the impression that Wikipedia would like to suggest that it is over an indeterminable period and repeating, but the sources are only evidence of him being convicted twice on specific dates. It leaves the reader with an idea of what he has done, but no idea what constitutes "a history".

The lead should be factual. He has been convicted twice, for events between 2013 and 2018. Any suggestion of committing anything beyond this needs pristine reliable sources, less it be dangerously libellous. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

He has a past history of having committed such crimes. That's neither libelous nor a suggestion that it happened over an indeterminable period. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
If it is not an indeterminable period, why not share with the reader that period? There is also a difference between "a past history of having committed" and "a history of committing". The tense on "committing" is present continuous. The phrasing quite clearly leaves the reader in the dark about the extent of his crimes, and could be interpreted as suggesting they continue. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I still think that's splitting hairs and I'm unwilling to bend over backwards to go easy on Chahal, especially in light of the longstanding (and ongoing) efforts to give his article a favorable slant. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about the wording of that sentence in the lead. Lepricavark (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

One conviction and a connected VoP is not a "history of committing". -- Deepfriedokra 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Domestic violence and battery conviction as a subsection of personal life

I agree with this edit by Winged Blades of Godric that moved "domestic violence and battery conviction" as a subsection of personal life per WP:CRITS. That part of the edit was undone and the section title changed to criminal history, I restored the change of the title and TheSandDoctor just restored the move as I was writing this comment. I agree, and think it should remain this way. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I strongly oppose a section header "Domestic violence and battery conviction." This goes double for a section header of "Criminal history." Either heading vastly and recklessly overemphasizes a chapter in the subject's life. It is a subchapter of his personal life. The edit summary "Criminal history" is pejorative and also overplays the matter. It was a domestic battery conviction and a related VOP. This hardly constitutes a criminal history. Wot the diamond sed. -- Deepfriedokra 17:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't get how it overplays the matter. The most significant coverage he's received is due to the charges and subsequent jail time and probation violation. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
We do need more reliably sourced info on his current relationship. And just because an incident received notoriety in the media does not mean we need to follow suit. As I keep saying, it is better to downplay negative content. If one is to err, it is better to err on the side of not giving undue emphasis to a negative incident.-- Deepfriedokra 17:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with Deepfriedokra. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well said. We don't need to be shaming people for (admittedly severely wrong) actions they make in life, anyone who thinks we should needs to take a step back from this BLP. The article's current coverage of the incidents is in-depth, and more than heavily weighted. But, I agree that the section title needs to likely be toned down here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Wrong is raising your voice. We don't care if people are wrong here. However, kicking someone 117 times in 30 minutes and then trying to smother them is more than "wrong", especially when it's done a second time years later and results in convictions. I don't understand the need to downplay something factually accurate and well sourced just because the subjects minions whined to Jimbo. Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I Think the current version is now fine. I don't see a need for moving or toning down the current subsection title "Domestic violence and battery conviction" it accurately summarizes its contents, that are well sourced and follow WP:BLP. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that the actions of the "subject's minions" have not played in his favor and I doubt that there has been any intercession or contact to the editors currently involved. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Is it more than just wrong, yes, that's why I said "severely wrong" (I used the word "terrible" at my talk page...). Arguing semantics like that here isn't really helpful. As far as it being downplayed, I don't think anyone is suggesting that occur to the conviction section contents (they're well sourced and definitely relevant to his notability). The sub-section title itself is what I and Deepfriedokra (seem to) draw issue with at this point (my point of heavy weighting is to say more content could be added about his life/current relationship). To your final point, I was not aware this person had contacted Jimbo, so that is not really at all relevant to what I said (and I honestly doubt it has anything to do with what any established contributor has said so far at this talk page). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me assure you that contacting Mr. Wales has been the least troublesome of the actions undertaken by Mr. Chahal and his minions. But that is not germane here. As I said before, it's our integrity as editors and as an encyclopedia that is at issue here. See my comment further up. As for "Domestic violence and battery conviction," I was thinking. It had it's profoundest effect on Mr, Chahal's career, and that is where it belongs. And if I was unclear earlier, WP:CRITS applies. Now, returning to the subject of integrity, we should not adopt a loophole mentality. Just because we can interpret a rule to allow content does not mean we must or should. While we tend to discuss matters, and rightly so, in the rarefied air of our own policies and guidelines, we must also be cognizant that we edit about real people that can be harmed by our words. We must endeavor to not give undue weight to negative events recorded in our encyclopedia. And we need not cover every juicy tidbit of unpleasantness that is reported by the media. We are not a newspaper. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard.-- Deepfriedokra 21:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think either option, as long as is a subsection is OK, but I personally think, that it fits better in the "personal life" that in the "career" section. I agree that the convictions had strong side-effect repercussions on his career, but they stemmed from his violent acts towards women in the context of his personal life and in my opinion, actually going to jail, probably had at least the same profound effect to his personal life, than loosing his CEO posts had on his career. @Deepfriedokra: Please clarify if you are suggesting to change the title for the subsection, Coffee seems to think so, I interpreted that the main point was that it was not a standalone section, but that the current title is OK (as opposed to Criminal history which I agree that overplays the matter). I do agree with Coffee in that expanding a bit the "personal life" section would make sense, but only if we can find some relevant content that is properly sourced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you'e spot on with WP:CRITS-- either subsection location would be fine. I think better under career as the flow ans context and sense are better.-- Deepfriedokra 13:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. Once again. ANyone who thinks the impetus for this uproar was someone whining to Jimbo needs to read this talk page more closely, especially any threads that have been hatted, collapsed, or archived in the past week or two.And this thread with its subthreads, and the related user talk pages. Furthermore, on a BLP, we'd better be right. As to the specific, sensationalist, emotionally charged content added about the subject to this talk page, do we have a reliable source for that?-- Deepfriedokra 13:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
What statement is it that you're looking for a supporting source? Nothing in this article or this talk page is unsourced at this point. Praxidicae (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article [...] fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". If the majority of coverage about Chahal is about the conviction for assault and battery, then our guidelines say that should be reflected proportionally in the article. If there's an issue with the sources, please point them out. Waggie (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Since when is a subject's criminal history part of his/her personal life? Chahal's criminal activity was very much a public affair, not a personal affair. It was reported in the press and TV. Nowhere on Wikipedia can I find an instance where a subject's criminal history is described as a subheading of his/her personal life. For example, see Harvey Weinstein. As I understand it, "Personal Life" is reserved for marriages, divorces, love affairs, family life, children, and the like. Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think beating two of his girlfriends falls under that category, but as I said before, I would not oppose to moving the subsection to "career" as suggested by Deepfriedokra. As far as the comment on WP:UNDUE I think it should be balanced with WP:CRITS. There are no conflicting points of view from different RS on the matter to balance and as far as relative to other aspects of the bio, since in the current version both incidents and their main consequences are included and they are also cited in the lead I don't see an issue with adding additional content to other aspects of the bio, but only if the sources justify it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Getting arrested, tried, and convicted very publicly in the news isn't a "personal" matter. It's also not part of his career. As others have pointed out, these sorts of things generally do not end up falling under either of those sections in articles. Take a look at Hans Reiser, Jim Gordon (musician), or Foxy Brown (rapper), for example - their illegal activities do not end up buried in their "Personal life" sections. Waggie (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
From the section bellow James Brown, Terrence Howard, Johnny Depp... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Excellent contrast, thank you. In the cases of those articles, there is substantially more coverage in reliable sources about other aspects of their lives and careers. Waggie (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
But not always: Maria Teresa Carlson. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
In the case of Tyreek Hill there are 17 references for the subsections of his personal life on domestic violence and related conviction. Since there is sustancial coverage on other areas they are expanded. In this case the same thing should apply. Only if we find properly sourced and relevant coverage to expand other areas, should we do it, otherwise, I personally think that the current version of the article is well balanced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

More Curios

Another curio: User 49.130.130.57 from his Talk page pinged the following to Winged Blades of Godric on February 4: "Winged Blades of Godric, let me know when I should see your updates changes from the email you sent earlier today. You already did RB, now do the other." RB refers to Rubina Bajwa, Chahal's girlfriend. What is "the other"? If you look at 49.130.130.57's contributions, you will see that he/she attempted to scrub Chahal's criminal activity and firing from the RadiumOne article (Chahal founded RadiumOne). Who is 49.130.130.57? This article gets curiouser and curiouser. We know from this tweet that Chahal watches his article page on Wikipedia. What does he do besides watch? Chisme (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty well established that Mr. Chahal and his minions have done their utmost to whitewash this article. I think everyone here and who took part in the ANI thread knows. @Chisme: have you a comment related to content and its sourcing? Have you concerns better suited to some other venue?-- Deepfriedokra 17:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure. See the paragraph I wrote above "More Curious." I challenge anyone to find an article where a subject's criminal history is a subheading of his/her "Personal Life." Chisme (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. I think it belongs under career. But I mean in this particular thread.-- Deepfriedokra 17:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
James Brown and Terrence Howard for example, but there are more if you want. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Touchė. "I jump back, I want to kiss myself" --James Brown.-- Deepfriedokra 17:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Bonus round: Johnny Depp --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
eeewww! Captain Jack Sparrow.-- Deepfriedokra 17:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
You may be right, although I need to point out that your examples are all entertainers. These people from business and politics have narrow "Personal Lives": Michael Cohen (lawyer), Bernie Madoff, Tim Blixseth, Kevin Trudeau, Anil Kumar. Chisme (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
People like Steve Bannon, with a business and politics background, also have domestic violence episodes included in the personal life section of their articles. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Back to the original discussion... @Winged Blades of Godric: in case you may want to clarify. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Why do we still have to explain the Streisand effect?  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I have left a note on the t/p of Rubina Bajwa, before I accepted the draft. Strange stuff has been happening off-wiki, though and I am in contact with the appropriate forums. ∯WBGconverse 06:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in knowing. Thank you for clarifying. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say he was convicted of assaulting the second woman?

Reading the sources, the 2016 conviction is interesting. The victim returned to South Korea, and one of the sources even continues to says 'alleged victim', 'alleged crime' etc even in 2018 [6] [7]. From what I can tell, he was never actually convicted of assaulting the second woman per se. He was convicted of violating his probation, including as the judge accepted he had assaulted the second woman. (As a probation violation doesn't require the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard but instead 'preponderance of evidence'.) This is a bit convoluted or weird, but I feel per BLP we probably need to better reflect than we currently do [8] what the 2016 conviction was about. The lead is IMO probably fine, as a summary, but the article needs to some rewording. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the best way is to reflect what the source says. Convicted for violating the probation because of his violence against the second girlfriend. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, Agreed. I rephrased it slightly though. More "high-falutin'" sounding! Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I worked on this too. I think it's clear now. He was guilty of violating his probation after he beat up the second woman. Chisme (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Chisme, looks good to me. Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. thank you all. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Although you agree (and thanks for the "thank yous"), it got reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisme (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
What did? the current version seems fine on that point now. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

There's nothing against the copyedits but:-

(1) the number of initial counts (45/47/varies across sources) is sheer trivia.

counts of domestic violence is trivial???? Chisme (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
That's the initial count (which's almost-always hyped); not something he was finally convicted under the purview of. ∯WBGconverse 13:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(2) They probably entered some off-court bargain per DBeast but she not only did refuse to cooperate with the prosecution but also urged for dropping of all charges, per multiple sources. Usage of despite is correct.

(3) Inadmissibility of video made news, but given this is a BLP and we don't have any third party/judicial confirmation on its contents, (other than SFDA claims) best to exclude it esp. about its contents.

(4) This time of another company is redundant and poor English, imo.

If you want to get in a discussion of what is poor English in this article, you could write a treatise. You used the word "migrate" when "emigrate" is correct. In the USA it's not the "Postal Department"; it's the Postal Service. "Forays derived from"? Chisme (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
That's whataboutery. ∯WBGconverse 06:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(5) Do we mention these type of jail terms in lead? See Chris Brown, Dennis Rodman, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen et al.

(6) Placeholder. ∯WBGconverse 06:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to include things like "despite her refusal to co-operate with the prosecution" we should also mention the surveillance video which the court disallowed as evidence. The witness may have been intimidated into not testifying. She was an immigrant. She had her reasons. It's not up to us to speculate what they were. "Dispite her refusal" seems to imply she had ulterior motives and wasn't truthful. Anyhow, the issue as outline above is that his second conviction was for violating his probation after he beat a second woman. The paragraph we agreed to above (and which you summarily reverted) was:

In 2016, Chahal was accused of committing domestic violence against a second woman — a violation of his 2014 probation. San Francisco County Superior Court sentenced him to a year in jail, noting his pattern of violence against women.[1]; Chahal was again compelled to resign his position as CEO, this time of another company, Gravity4.[2] California state appeals court upheld the verdict in April 2018[3], and he served six months in San Francisco County Jail.[4]

You have laden this article with all kinds of details about the subject's accomplishments and awards, yet you object to details about his criminal activity. Why? Chisme (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Objections? Noted about despite. ∯WBGconverse 06:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
IMO we're opening up another can of worms if we're starting to talk about the first witness not cooperating. Besides the video, at least one source mention a possible $4 million payout to the first victim. [9] [10] Should we mention that? Probably not since it seems to be a poorly supported claim. It sounds like it came from a civil suit in a wrongful termination claim. [11] [12] Even so, there's clearly a lot going on here and I don't think we should go into too many details besides the outcome. BTW better supported although unrelated to the victim not testifying is his eliciting the help of Willie Brown and some of the stated reasons for it. [13] [14] And although that seems to say more about US politics than about Chahal, it does illustrate how messy this whole thing is. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nil Einne:There are many worm cans here. For example, what do we do about the video tape that showed the subject kicking his girlfriend 117 times? From the article: "The footage was so clear that San Francisco police were able to determine that Gurbaksh Chahal punched and kicked his girlfriend 117 times in 30 minutes. He also smothered her with a pillow for 20 seconds." The tape was deemed inadmissible at trial because the police did not get permission before obtaining it. The tape is what made prosecutors pursue the case even though the woman declined to testify. Chisme (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rainey, Libby (12 Aug 2016). "Tech mogul Gurbaksh Chahal gets 1 year in domestic violence case". San Francisco Chroncile. Retrieved 1 November 2016.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference SFChronicleHuet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Ma, Annie (2018-04-28). "Court upholds ruling against SF tech mogul Chahal in domestic violence case". SFGate. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  4. ^ Daly, Michael (September 3, 2018). "O.J.'s Lawyer and the Woman-Abusing Princeling of Silicon Valley" – via www.thedailybeast.com.

The article says the subject "is a popular motivational speaker." What constitutes a "popular motivational speaker"? If anyone can find a source, we can include this. Otherwise, "popular motivational speaker" is purely subjective and should be dropped. Chisme (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chisme, that particular line is sourced from the Hungarian RS. ∯WBGconverse 07:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not convinced by your citations for "popular motivational speaker." One citation is from 21 Nov 2010, almost ten years ago. The other is from March 29, 2011, nine years ago. I venture to say given his past as an abuser he isn't being invited anymore to give motivational speeches. Can you find a more recent link to suggest he is "popular motivational speaker"? If not, this claim has to go. Chisme (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to have a more recent source. The repeated bouts of woman beating can't have helped his credibility as a speaker. Lepricavark (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I removed "popular" from the sentence since even if source still remains WP:PUFFERY. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you MJL. Winged Blades of Godric, this is not the kind of phrasing you want to defend. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mandiner.ru

There are several citations to an article from hu:Mandiner.hu [15]. Although mandiner.ru may be a WP:RS, I am reluctant to give it much WP:WEIGHT in this article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Its a paywalled RS. In any case, all all the content which have been sourced from it, can be sourced to (atleast) another RS and I have checked that, earlier. If you wish to verify integrity of any part, please ask. ∯WBGconverse 11:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Could you provide a quote to verify the E&Y award? I am unable to find any reference to the award other reliable sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Billhpike: I can help with that... Business Insider: "The company kept climbing, and he was named one of the 2013 entrepreneurs of the year by Ernst and Young." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Billhpike. Please see the above. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Problems with Intro sentence

I have problems with this sentence from the Intro: "Chahal has been convicted twice for domestic violence and battery crimes, in 2013 and 2016. Although Chahal maintains innocence, he was compelled on both occasions to resign from the roles of CEO." Apart from the fact that "roles of CEO" will make little sense to the reader, this makes it sound like his chief punishment was being forced to resign from his companies. Really, his chief punishment was having to serve time in jail. We should mention his jail time in the Intro. It's a standout, remarkable fact. Chisme (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, in similar cases (I mentioned above) am not seeing such mentions in lead. The CEO bits can be copyedited for clarity. At any case, this sentence was agreed upon by me, CC and Ravensfire in an earlier section. Get a consensus, please. ∯WBGconverse 07:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm working on a consensus. I'm worried we trivialize his crime in this article. We do a disservice to the victims when we imply that he his chief punishment was having to resign as the CEO of a company. BTW, "In any case" is correct; not "at any case." Chisme (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I can live with the current version, but I agree that the 6 months of jail time seems notable enough to go in the lead and in my opinion would be an justified improvement for this particular article. I would also recommend adding back the fact that he was fired by the board of directors of companies he founded for clarity.
I propose this wording: "Chahal has been convicted twice for domestic violence and battery crimes, in 2013 and 2016, for which he served 6 months in prison.[1][2][3] Although Chahal maintains innocence, he was compelled on both occasions to resign from the roles of CEO, by the board of directors of companies that he founded.[4]" --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I like Crystallizedcarbon's idea. I would just change it a little bit: ""Chahal was convicted twice for domestic violence and battery crimes, in 2013 and 2016, for which he served six months in prison.[1][2][3] Although Chahal maintains his innocence, he was compelled on both occasions to resign his position as CEO from the companies that he founded (of RadiumOne and Gravity4)." Chisme (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Chahal was fired by RadiumOne. In case of Gravity4, news-articles (as well as the BOD's own PR) do not mention anything of that sort; it looks like it was a resignation.
Also as NilEnne has argued, the second time was not a conviction of DV but rather a revocation of probation (the standards of two differ). These ought be clarified. ∯WBGconverse 03:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Good morning @Winged Blades of Godric: Can you propose an improved wording? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Please check the current version:- In 2013, Chahal plead guilty to domestic violence and battery crimes, and was compelled to resign from the roles of CEO of RadiumOne. In 2016, he was convicted of a probation violation. Chahal maintains innocence. Feel free to wordsmith further. ∯WBGconverse 13:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra and TheSandDoctor: - any opinions? ∯WBGconverse 14:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I restored the previous version incorporating the clarifications made by Winged Blades of Godric and adding the jail term as discussed above. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose the following wording that has been undone:

"In 2013, Chahal was convicted for domestic violence and battery crimes, and was fired from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of directors. In 2016 after a second incident of domestic violence against another woman, his probation was revoked. Chahal served six months in jailprison, and resigned as CEO of Gravity4. He maintains innocence."

The latest edit eliminated the term "convicted" and introduced instead that the accepted a no contest plea bargain, it might be to much detail for the lead, if we add it, we should also restore "convicted after..". Also as pointed out above and in the body of the article the subject was fired by RadiumOne, not forced to resign. As far as the references some were redundant and seemed a bit excessive, but I am not opposed to keeping them in the lead. I think that the proposed wording integrates what was discussed above, are there any objections? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I am ambigous about references in lead. No need but no objections to use, either.
  • Going the way of a nolo-contendre has granted Chahal the chance to claim that he merely accepted it to waste less time and all that (which have been covered by RSs). This ought to be mentioned in lead per BLP.
  • Being convicted is redundant to accepting a plea bargain.
  • Nothing against fired.
  • Since there was no conviction for 2nd DV (and standards of conviction and probation violation vary), it is probably wise to keep it out of lead. Or (atleast) mention after charges of DV, probation was revoked.
  • Gravity4 resignation seem to be quite cordial and his sister replaced him (which hints at something). Not sure a fallout, relevant enough. Unlike the RadiumOne firing.
  • Need to hear more voices about jail-term. I went through a lot many celebrities who have spent varying lengths of jail-time for DV (and related issues) but nothing in lead. ∯WBGconverse 03:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of the most important contents of the article. The status quo version included "convicted". this word summarizes the "what". is clearly notable and should be restored. the "no contest plea bargain" is part of the "how" and is explained in the body. The place for those details with positive implications, as well as for other that may be negative for the subject is the body. The second charge carried jail term, Sources have deemed the re-incidence and the jail term served very notable. This should not be suppressed from the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, lead is (sort of) a summary but finer details shall not be overlooked (esp. in a BLP). So, my argument about nolo-contendre and subsequent redundancy stands.
I am willing to hear others on jail-term. ∯WBGconverse 11:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not arguing for overlooking finer details, just that their proper place is the body of the article and not the lead, and that the previous status quo version that did mention the conviction should not be changed without consensus. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the argument for not including the notable fact about jail time, based on examples of celebrities that don't include it, as there are also multiple examples of businessmen that do: Wojciech Janowski, Marcelo Odebrecht, Dan Adamescu, etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I could agree with WBG on leaving Gravity4 resignation out of the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I have restored the status quo version before WBG bold edits. Waiting for comments from other editors to try to reach a consensus on the best wording. My revised suggestion was:
"In 2013, Chahal was convicted for domestic violence and battery crimes, and was fired from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of directors. In 2016 after a second incident of domestic violence against another woman, his probation was revoked. Chahal served six months in jail, and resigned as CEO of Gravity4. He maintains innocence."
All the elements are sourced and very relevant and summarize the "what" without getting into the "how" which is explained in the proper section. I would appreciate comments from involved editors (and others) on whether this proposed text could be acceptable. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
We are clearly engaged in a disagreement about the lead intro. Need to think.
But why did you revert a host of other changes? Collateral damage?
If so, please self-revert. And/or otherwise, clarify your rationale. ∯WBGconverse 11:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
My first line will be:- In 2013, Chahal was convicted for plead guilty to (more accurate, detailed, and implies conviction by redundancy) domestic violence and battery, and was fired terminated (more encyclopedic language) from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of Directors (obvious and redundant).
Let's think more about the second line.
In 2016, after a second new (more apt than numbering) incident charges (that no conviction were secured under this; see NilEnne's post up above) of domestic violence against another woman (that the victim is a woman, can be easily assumed. We did the same for first DV line and M-to-M is extraordinarily rare) his probation was revoked and Chahal served six months in jail. and resigned as CEO of Gravity4. (given that his own sister took over the roles and there were no termination, I deem it too detailed for lead)
Need to hear others on jail term; checked WP pages of other celebrities (and like) convicted of DV and jailed, as a result. Almost none mention anything in lead. CC presents 3 examples but someone getting a 19 year jail term for company-fraud or someone convicted for attempt to murder are fairly different cases, merit-wise.
Agree about third line. Chahal/He maintains innocence. ∯WBGconverse 12:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's hear Coffee as someone who has not been yet editorially involved (except for a lone t/p comment) as to this page but has been following the net developments around the article. What do you say? ∯WBGconverse 12:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello WBG, You are right, there was some collateral damage, I have restored most of them. I have out pending discussion three cuestionable edits. 1- Adding the Complex magazine mention as it does not seem notable enough and does not seem to add much to the current contents of the section that already indicate that more notable publications mention him. If independent sources also mention this I would have no objection in adding it. 2- La belling the book as a bestseller. I could not find it in the current sources, but still seems unneeded and promotional. 3- Changing the title of the subsection to eliminate "and battery conviction" as this was the consensus after a long discussion on a previous section. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
For the first line, I disagree with the first suggestion, as per above the conviction is the notable fact, the pleading is accessory, someone can plead guilty and the judge may still decide to not convict them. I do agree with your second suggestions. As far as the board of directors, it addresses a concern that another editor raised about the need to clarify that it was not part of the sentence.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
For the second line, I agree with the first two changes, I don't agree with removing against another woman, since the issue that it clarifies is not that it was against a woman (vs man), but that it was not against the same one as in the first incident. As far as him resigning as CEO of Gravity4, I really lean towards including it, since having to step down from your own company seems to be a very notable fact, the many RS that covered it also make it so, but if any additional editors feel it does not belong in the lead I would not argue further. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Finally on the comment of the jail term, those were just some examples, there are more. My understanding is that we should try to asses notability on an objective fashion by using the amount of coverage received by independent reliable sources as a gauge, I think in this case that criteria is clearly met so as I said before, citing some examples of celebrities that don't include their jail term in the lead does not seem like a valid criteria. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Revised proposal incorporating some improvements by WBG

"In 2013, Chahal was convicted for domestic violence and battery crimes, and was terminated from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of directors. In 2016 after new charges of domestic violence against another woman, his probation was revoked. Chahal served six months in jail, and resigned as CEO of Gravity4. He maintains innocence."

Acceptable? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I've been asked to comment here once more, here's my thoughts: 1. Crystallizedcarbon you should immediately re-add the line about the book being a bestseller. If you actually paid to get past the paywall on the Hungarian source (as I did, and as you most certainly should have done before removing it) you would find this line: "Talán ezért is lett The Dream (az álom) című könyve nemzetközi bestseller."... which translates roughly to "Which is perhaps why The Dream became an international bestseller." You should never remove a source simply because you didn't pay to get past the paywall, nor should you remove a source just because you do not understand the language (AGF applies to offline and foreign language sourcing; as you can see there's a very good reason for this). 2. From a BLP standpoint, I'm mostly okay with the changes as put forward by yourself and WBG, but am on the fence with the redundancies (no one but the board of directors could have terminated him). Of course, I also just think as far as covering these issues in the lead goes... the only thing that really needs to be added to the current sentences in the lead is "for which he was sentenced to probation, then six months in jail after the terms of his probation were broken" or something similar. But, regardless I don't think either present major BLP concerns. From a point of providing clarity to the reader on who the DV victim was, I think it best if we at least say "a second woman he was in a relationship with" (the same goes for the text regarding this in the body of the article) ... and specifically to Crystallizedcarbon's proposal, it should be better worded so as to not partially leave open room for misinterpretations that the woman was the one charged... something like "domestic violence charges were once again levied on Chahal regarding a second woman he was in a relationship with". But, I'll leave the wordsmithing up to those most active here. As I try to take Saturdays off, this will likely be the only comment I will make here today. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Coffee: I agree about paywall sources. On my comment I should have noted that it could have being sourced by that article as it was the case, but that was not my main reason for reverting that bold change by WBG. I could not find it in other sources either other than Chahals own websites, it is likely that the Hungarian source echoes that description, What I did find is that Amazon ranks it bellow the 4 million position for the paper back copy and bellow the 2 million position for their online version. I don´t think that can be considered notable. To me labeling it a bestseller based on what the current sources say seems promotional. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The board of directors was included to clarify that it was not part of the sentence. (concern raised by another editor). I do agree with your proposed wording improvements. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The justification for BoD seem weird to me.
Theoretically pleading guilty does not equate conviction. But for all practical purposes, the terms are redundant.
Trying to ascertain veracity of 'best-seller' from Amazon and contradicting 2 reliable-sources in the process seem textbook OR to me.
[Placeholder about sub-section title] ∯WBGconverse 01:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply in same order as your comments:
Look at Chisme comments at the beginning of this section, he was concerned that the current version could be interpreted by some readers that the termination was a consequence of the sentence and that it was the only consequence. It seemed reasonable, and in the body it is explained how he felt betrayed by them and claimed that it was the BoD that pushed him to accept the plea bargain to then firing him. But I would like to get input from other editors.
If the terms are redundant, conviction (the end result) should prevail over pleading guilty in a summary.
from WP:NBOOK:
"A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources"
Is the book included in a reliable best seller list? or in a list published by a notable media outlet? If not then I don't think we should use Wikipedia's voice to label it as such. As I said before, doing so based on those sources would be promotional in my opinion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
For the sub-section title consensus please look at Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal#Domestic_violence_and_battery_conviction_as_a_subsection_of_personal_life. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay about BoD.
Meh about conviction/plead guilty.
Not sure about how NBOOK is any relevant. Coffee disagrees up above, as well.
Not seeing any specific consensus on title. My way of argumentation is that DV is the broader theme that holds the section and shall be the title. For example, in case of BlueLithium we don't say BlueLithium Sale (though that sale is the end result and vital reason for notability of BL). ∯WBGconverse 10:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I am glad that we have seemed to have reached a consensus on the intro text.
About the third point NBOOK, just shows how we determine if a book is a bestseller in the context of notability, since that is clearly not met here, I insist that it would not be encyclopedic for us to label a book that is not included in any bestseller list as a bestseller, even if two "sources" label it as such. To me that would be promotional and would set a bad precedent. If you can find it listed in any reliable best-seller list, I would of course change my mind, but that does not seem to be the case.
On the point of the sub-title, only Coffee proposed to tone it down, the final decision that was not contested was to move it as a subsection of the personal life and keep it as is without toning down. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That makes two of us.
In any case, the section is entirely based on Chahal's infamous DV exploits. At least, the battery ought to be trimmed.
As to the presence of conviction, arguments can be made both ways. Any GA/FA to guide us? ∯WBGconverse 09:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It is no longer a section, after consensus, now it is a subsection. I see no justification to trim battery as it accurately describes the sourced and notable contents of the subsection. Sourced Facts should not be eliminated for being infamous if they do not violate WP:BLP or WP:ISNOT. The same thing applies to the conviction.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • TheSandDoctor, thank you for your response to my comments on this edit in the ANI thread, but I don't think you really answered my main point: you took the verified jail sentence out of the lead, that was the problem. And I still don't understand why a conviction is noteworthy enough for the lead (via consensus) but a related jail sentence is not. I mean, that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. (BTW, Chisme, in that edit of yours a source for the jail sentence should have been included: the sourcing that was there was from 2015, before he went to jail, in tears.

    And speaking of sourcing, what's not in the article AT ALL is what this "one charge of domestic violence battery" means: he punched and kicked his girlfriend 117 times, and there's video of it. 117 times--surely the Guardian is reliable enough. 117. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi Drmies you are correct. As Crystallizedcarbon pointed out, I was actually responding to the wrong diff (must've been diff hopping for context and got mixed up). I was planning to respond to this last night when I had time, but the discussion at ANI closed before I could. Referring back to my points there, points 2 still stands, with 1, 3 and 4 now largely N/A to the diff you actually intended for comment on (but still stand for my reversion of the edit I thought you had asked about).
    What drew me to revert this specific edit was mostly the fact that "jail," which is sourced reliably, was altered to read "prison" which is not supported by sources. This made the edit eligible under WP:BLPRS for removal without discussion. In my same warning linked previously, I brought this up. This was also influenced, as mentioned in point #4, due to Chisme being unable to keep a neutral point of view in regards to this article (and later admitted it).
    My revert didn't mean that no one could re-add the line about being sentenced to jail, it is just important on a BLP that it be stated factually (jail not prison) and convey what the sources said, so as to prevent WP:OR. For more context on this, I once again point to my warning, their response, and Coffee's discovery.
    I believe the article did previously mention punching her 117 times, but (going off of memory) that was removed at some point as WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. While his alleged actions (if true) are essentially inhumane, that doesn't permit us to flaunt BLP and other policies. The Guardian only notes the 117 times thing is in an alleged video of questionable encyclopaedic value (reliable sources are conflicted on whether it ever ended up in any record but even those that say it did still say “allegedly” & it was reportedly never shown to the jury etc and thus not used as evidence/proven in court). That type of fact is sensational and as an encyclopaedia we're to avoid sensationalism, even if large media outlets think it's okay. If it is to be added, there should be strong consensus established per WP:BLP and the aforementioned policies. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Back so soon... @Anachronist: Heads up. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I have added the agreed changes to the page including Coffee's wording improvements. There was no full consensus on the part about resigning from Gravity4, but since there were no further comments and it seems notable enough for the lead, I went ahead and put it in as well, if any other editor thinks it should not be in the lead please remove that part and we can continue discussing it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: You had me goin', but the article reads allegedly. We shouldn't post allegations. Not sure we can use inadmissible evidence. I think the weighting is excessive and lurid if we include the 117. But I am losing inerest in this subject. Henceforth, if anyone suggests anything I've already objected to, please note that my objection still stands despite the waning of my interest. May need to post a COI notice for those not keeping track.-- Deepfriedokra 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with Deepfriedokra, even though is well sourced, to me WP:BLPCRIME seems to imply that we should only include crimes for which a subject has been convicted. That is now in the article, since the video was inadmisible as evidence, the alleged 117 kicks were not part of the conviction, so my understanding is that it would best to leave that detail out. I have been here for a while, but I am still learning, so please correct me if I am wrong. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
None that previous editors of this page were unaware of. And as you know, COI editors discuss rather than edit directly. I actually support the edits that WBG has made, without the COI. Allegations were made of UPE, and I wanted it all sifted at ANI. I think WBG made clear that he is not a UPE and I think there is a consensus acknowledging it at ANI. If I blocked a couple of other editors, that would have been seriously wrong. But I think there are enough editors now looking at this to sift it. Drmies has (as happens) given an opinion taking the opposite view to mine. Since I keep getting drawn like a moth to a flame, I decided to place the COI for the late comers.-- Deepfriedokra 21:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved for their contributions and flexibility. I am glad an understanding has been reached. The article seems to be in a reasonable state now. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh in Democratic Party?

As of today, the article lists Gurbaksh's party affiliation as "Democratic." However, I can find no sources for this. Yes, he had his picture taken with Obama, who was a Democrat, but he also had his picture taken with Trump, a Republican. Where does the subject state his party affiliation? Unless he explicitly states it, "Democrat" needs to be removed from the Info box. I'm removing it. Please discuss before restoring it. Chisme (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've noticed Chahal has retweeted Trump quite a few times. The removal seems like a good idea. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a need for a recent source and I clearly agree. However the WaPo article (which passes RS by a mile or so) clearly mentions that he was a regular donor to Democrats, at least right until DV-I unfolded. ∯WBGconverse 17:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Establishing party affiliation from campaign donations might be original research, as most companies do donate to both parties (see here). Has the subject himself made public his political affiliation? If that is not the case or if there is no reliable source that clearly states that he is affiliated with the Democratic party, I agree with the removal by Chisme. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The link provided by you studies donations by employees of big corporations; not sure what the relevance is.
Also, as to being pictured with Trump, Trump was hardly visible in AMPOL circa 2010. Trump's political affiliations had switched a lot (he changed from Dem to Rep late 2009) and I don't believe Chahal had a crystal ball to predict that the business magnate will be the POTUS, 6 years later from Rep. ∯WBGconverse 04:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, see this scathing letter-to-editor and going by tweets, he was running some poll about who is going to win the Dem. primaries. Read this article for more about connection with Democrats. ∯WBGconverse 04:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, my point is that some CEOs do donate to both parties (see here), and that donation does not always imply affiliation. I don't think that the letter to the editor you presented is a valid RS as it is not subject to editorial control. To avoid WP:OR, we need a reliable source or even an auto-publication by the subject himself clearly stating party affiliation. If anybody can find it, it could be added. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The second source is clearly RS but it only mentions donations (some were returned) and being photographed with Obama at a dinner. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The second source has more than that — about senators from Dem trying to save him and all that. In any case, I don't like citing self published sources except in exceptional cases but we have got this, which probably settles the debate. ∯WBGconverse 15:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Senator from Dem trying to save him is also not enough. However, the self published Twitter source by the subject himself is valid per WP:SELFSOURCE, so I support adding it back using it as a reference until a better one can be found. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: Please don't forget to add your source. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The link to Twitter doesn't work (as of today 3/6). When I click it I get a page that says "This Tweet is unavailable." Did Chahal tweet something about his support of the Democratic Party? Either the link was entered incorrectly or Chahal deleted the tweet. @Winged Blades of Godric: can you fix this? If not, and if we can't find a source for his support of Democrats, his party affiliation needs removing. Chisme (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Check archived link, that is to be used in case of link rot. ∯WBGconverse 03:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorate Degree and Leaders in Management Award

Gurbaksh has been honored with the Leaders in Management Award and was given an honorary degree in Commercial Science by the Pace University. Chahal has also been actively involved with Pace University and in 2010 launched the Gurbaksh Chahal - Entrepreneurial Scholarship Program This keeps getting thrown out of the article. My answer is why?

Here are all the RP sources that state this: https://www.pace.edu/news-release/gurbaksh-chahal-founder-and-ceo-radiumone-to-deliver-keynote-address-pace-university%E2%80%99s https://news.blogs.pace.edu/2010/05/04/pace-university-awards-honorary-doctorate-to-internet-star/ https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Internet-star-Chahal-getting-honorary-doctorate-3190862.php

How are these three sources not sufficient for this award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRight2020 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrRight2020: The user Bonadea addressed this issue in a previous section. The concern is that the subject is not currently listed as an honorary graduate by the Pace University. Maybe it was taken away or maybe as Bonadea suggested one of the two sources may be mistaken. If it were to be included we would also have to add that he currently is not listed as such. In my opinion, including that he was awarded but is not currently listed as one is probably not a good idea. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@MrRight2020: Please don't forget to sign your comments, either with this button on your menu: Signature button or by typing this code: --~~~~ at the end of your messages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There is only one reliable source regarding who holds a honorary doctorate from a university, and that is the official documentation of that university. A press release is not official documentation. PRs do get things wrong sometimes (the blog post and the sfgate piece are based on the PR) – they are issued from a very different part of the university, not from the actual awarding body. Note that a different person is listed as receiving the degree – and while it is possible that they handed out two honorary degrees at the same time, it would not be possible that one of the h.c. drs would be mentioned in every single piece of official documentation, and not the other person! Again, we can't know whence the error came, but when we have conflicting information what we have to do is use the most reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

From what I read this is was a honorary doctorate degree in Commercisl Science. Are relying all are basis on the honorary doctor degreate on a random PDF file that may or may not have all the degrees there? Either way, why are there multiple sources, articles from Pace University and SFGate discussing the honorary doctorate degree. I'm confused here. We know he got this degree, 3 sources prove it. But, it's almost like we are trying to find reasons in not trying to include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRight2020 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No, we are relying on official documentation, which is a more reliable source than a press release. (Again, there is one press release and two other sources basing pieces on it.) --bonadea contributions talk 19:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
See also this more detailed information about the 2010 recepients. --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Could he have a section, perhaps transcluded from a subpage, with links to discussion of these perennial issues.? It would save time and labor.-- Deepfriedokra 21:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
So on most sections Pace states he received the award and honorary degree. And on one section you are attributing to it doesn’t have it. Which is one is “official” and which one isn’t? How are you to decide that the sections I gave aren’t official? Why is the source I am referring to where Pace states the award and honorary degree did happen not sufficient? It’s WP policy to state facts, not try to make the facts stick to what the editor wants to theorize. MrRight2020 (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Also you simply created a theory that the honorary degree was “taken away.” Let’s even take that argument for a second, why wouldn’t Pace remove it in every form from its website? Also, when did Wikipedia editors start making theories on their own when writing content? If that was the case, I guess it’s time to edit every page of Wikipedia again. MrRight2020 (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@MrRight2020: As editors we don't have to make theories in either direction. For the subjects current status, I would have to agree with Bonadea that the current list of honorary degrees seems more reliable. Still, both are valid sources, so if one is included, the other one should be included as well, adding attribution to both, per WP:BALANCE. When there are reliable sources with conflicting versions, unless one of them is a fringe theory, neither one can be taken as fact, per WP:YESPOV. In this case we would have to write that: on their news site Pace University claimed that he was awarded an honorary degree in business, but that currently he is not included in their list. And personally I don't think it makes sense to add it that way. As far as I understand, the subject himself is actively reviewing this page, as he added his picture on 25 January (checked by OTRS), so if there is an error in the current list, it is likely that he already tried to or will try to correct it directly with Pace. As it stands now, I think we should put this issue to rest. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There's also this list of honorary degrees, but it's possible those are only those honorary degrees given during a commencement ceremony and since this wasn't, it may not appear in that list for that reason. There's an interesting bit in the SFGate article where it mentions that he established a scholarship program at Pace, so very possible this is the thanks for doing that. Ravensfire (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


Note MrRight2020 is now blocked as a CU-confirmed sock of banned user PunjabCinema07. Yunshui 雲水 08:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui. It's not surprising. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You'd almost think they'd be a touch repentant at some point, but then again, how often do you ever see UPE apologize after being caught socking ... again. Ravensfire (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaders in Mgmt award is non-notable but the hon. doctorate bit needs to be incorporated. I am afraid that we need a source clearly mentioning of the (afore-assumed) revocation to rebut this RS or else we are engaging in OR. I propose that this be incorporated for the time-being and some editor contact PACE about the discrepancy. ∯WBGconverse 05:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Winged Blades of Godric, What about noting both the scholarship program he created at Pace and the honorary degree from pace? Both are in the SF Gate article. I've got nothing against mentioning the good that someone has done and there's no question Chahal has done some very good things with what he's earned. Ravensfire (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    Done. We have another source from SAGE stating the same, as well. ∯WBGconverse 06:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: I removed the honorary degree information. There are conflicting views from reliable sources. The University keeps an updated list of honorary graduates and it does not currently list Chahal. If we add it back we would also need to add that he is currently not included in their list, better to leave the whole thing out for now. Since the subject is following this page, chances are that if there is an error in the University listings it will probably be fixed in the near future. I have put back the philanthropy and added the Leaders in Management Award as those two are uncontroversial. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the premises of your (plural) argumentation but realize that local consensus is not in my favor. Methinks the other award to be non-notable but whatever.... ∯WBGconverse 07:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
We have reliable sources including 2 prominent dailies mentioning the event w/o borrowing from any PR and absent confirmation of revocation (which's extraordinary), this ought to be mentioned. I suspect that Ravensfire is correct, in that the updated list only tracks honorary degrees given during public commencement ceremonies (going by dates). ∯WBGconverse 11:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Winged Blades of Godric I agree with you about the reliability of the sources you found. The problem is that even though it seems reasonable, as editors, we can't assume that the list is just for public commencement ceremonies only (as that is not stated). For the same reason we can't assume that it was somehow taken away or that any of them are in error. We can only add what the sources say, and when reliable sources have conflicting versions, like in this case, then both should be added with proper attribution. I agree with you that is relevant to the article, If we can find evidence in reliable sources that the list is not fully inclusive or if the university adds the subject to the list or if it makes a publication that postdates the list in which the honorary title is mentioned, I think it would be safe to include it, without having to make reference to the list. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
T/p stalkers/watchers:- Any opinions? ∯WBGconverse 14:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A compromise that is supported by the sources sounds most reasonable. If the RS can only be found for one point, or if the matter remains murky, could we add the content with a citation needed or a disputed tag?-- Deepfriedokra 14:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If we choose to include it, we would need add something like "however, Chahal is not included in Pace's current list of honorary graduates." using the list as a reference. Asserting something to then clarify that it may not be right does not sound too encyclopedic to me. I really think it would be better to wait. Given recent events, I think it's reasonable to assume that if the list is in error, the subject himself might contact the university to have it fixed. But as long as the reference to the current list is included I would not strongly object to the complete inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: We need to find a source that post-dates this list published by Pace on 2019 of Previous Honorary Degree Recipients. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a chance that the 2019 document may have been an oversight of some sort? It's two pace.edu references in support and one against. Karan (Karandotg) (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Karandotg: Yes, it's possible. There are other alternative explanations discussed above. We have no way of knowing. The subject himself is actively following this page, so I assume that if there is an error, it's just a matter of time before it'll be corrected. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to dig some deep into the absence of Chahal (and a few other figures) from the Doctorate list in sharp contrast to an abundance of sources (including official sources) mentioning them to have received Hon. Doc. from them.
And from a comparison of time-stamps, I am fairly confident that Ravensfire's original assertion was sharply accurate. Pace awards these degrees at private ceremonies, as well and this list covers only those doctorates which were conferred during Commencement Ceremonies.
Regrettably, Pace does not seem to maintain a list of doctorates awarded over private ceremonies. ∯WBGconverse 17:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems plausible, but we would need a reliable source to state that the list excludes honorary doctorates awarded at private ceremonies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
See this page which makes it amply clear that the PDF provided by you (which is our bone of discontent) only covers the awards conferred during commencement ceremonies. ∯WBGconverse 03:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that being clarified on that page. It includes the yearly lists but I see no clarification that others are excluded from the global one included at the top. It needs to be explicit. As it stands, from the sources we can only verify that it is the oficial list of honorary degree recipients. There is no explicit mention of exclusions or that it only lists a subset of recipients. We need to keep looking.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The page is located at 'Commencements' sub-directory and the header of the table (which accomodates a bunch of names for every year till 2019) is itself titled 'Previous Commencements'. Those very same names are in the PDF, as well. On some digging through SM, got this photo. ∯WBGconverse 08:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The page and the table bellow is about commencements, I do agree, But even if it seems very reasonable, we should find confirmation that the list included under the title Previous Honorary Degree Recipients is not inclusive and that its title is therefor incorrect or incomplete. As it would also be normal to expect for the list to not exclude other honorary recipients even if it is listed in page about commencements. If that is the case, Pace may want to add a small note to the list or to the page that introduces the list to clarify that some degree recipients are excluded. We should not have to do that research and draw conclusions ourselves.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Also if Pace publishes anything listing him as a recepient postdating that list it would be uncontroversial to add it. Should not be a problem for the subject given his past contributions to Pace. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The same list for 2015 (they update that list every year) does not mention Chahal but one of the documents cited above by me (coming from PACE itself) and from the same year do record him as a Hon. Doc.
So, going by your logic, even if Pace publishes anything postdating the 2019 list mentioning him as a Hon. Doc., the issue will become automatically controversial the next year when they update that list (which does not feature his name, as usual)! ∯WBGconverse 13:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I see what you are saying and even though there is still some "research" needed, my feeling is that adding it is probably justified. At this point, it would be appreciated if any admin watching the page could confirm that it would be OK. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Isn't receiving a Hon. Doc. typical lead stuff? I though think that the scholarship bit also needs to be mentioned in addition, (given the award carries firm impressions of being a payback). Karandotg, any comments? ∯WBGconverse 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Both the Hon. Doc. and the scholarship bit should be in the lead. Karan (Karandotg) (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. That the award and hon. doc. may have been a payback for the scholarship does not seem like a valid argument for inclusion in the lead, to me is just the opposite. The lead should include only the most important points. Just the basic information in a nutshell. This does not meet that criteria. Even inclusion in the body may still be open to interpretation since we needed to do some "research" to ignore the fact that he is missing from the latest list of honorary graduates, the idea was to wait for an admin to clarify. I do now lean towards inclusion so I have not reverted the recent addition to the body, but at the current level of detail for this subject, it clearly does not belong in the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
That's some brainstorming on my part but overall, I am meh about the scholarship bit. (Which's the reason I did not add it earlier.)
There's atleast another secondary non-interview source (2018 Feb) from a reputable vernacular daily (with second highest circulation numbers, language wise) that confirm of being a Hon. Doc. I can add that source, but is equivalent of ref-spamming. That he is a Hon. Doc. is settled beyond reasonable doubt.
Hon. Doc. is fairly significant academically, and I am not sure about the level of detail that you wish to seek in body about it. A hundred and one other bios (including GAs) mention hon doc. in lead.
I advice that you undo your revert, in light of Karantdog's comment. ∯WBGconverse 17:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, an honorary degree isn't significant, academically, it's a way of the university honoring someone, usually a speaker or donor that doesn't qualify for the degree. Look at Bill Cosby - he's not only been given 25+ honorary degrees, they've been taken away from him. No mention in the lead. It's an honor, yes, but lead-worthy? I would question that. I'm sure there are some articles that do mention them in the lead, but quite a few that don't. Ravensfire (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok noted. ∯WBGconverse 04:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Feel free to add back unused refs (are we using the WSJ piece, at all?) but the main point was that RadiumOne sale had nothing to do with Chahal, who has been fired long before. Besides that, there were some trims and copy edits. ∯WBGconverse 09:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The source used links both figures to the subject: "The IPO plans got derailed when Chahal pleaded guilty to charges of assault and domestic violence in 2014 and was subsequently fired by RadiumOne’s board of directors. In 2017, RadiumOne, which was reportedly valued at $500 million at its peak, was acquired by San Francisco-based data driven advertising technology platform RhythmOne for $22 million."
No issue with the "trims and copy edits" I restored the previous version because it did not allow to undue and there were many small changes along with the problematic ones. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: The reliable source used explicitly links Chahal's guilty plead with the derailing of the IPO and the sell for $22 million. Why did you remove it? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Well no. The IPO plans gor derailed but the company continued to do well enough for years (as held out over sources, and a reason as to why I think my redirecting RadiumOne was not merited) before finally folding up in 2017. Trying to find a causal link between two separate sentences is just weird. ∯WBGconverse 18:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The $500 million valuation at its peak was before the DV guilty plead (see here) I can change the wording to just add the three notable events mentioned above in chronological order and also including the failed IPO. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that. When I speak of sources, I do not imply that they are all present at this article.
See this BI piece which covers how RadiumOne continued to perform good enough, even after Chahal was fired, in contrast to rumors as documented over previous pieces. That article also notes that the overall adtech industry was in a state of flux, with declining stocks and no IPOs in last years.
When we have more updated sources contravening earlier sources, the value of the latter gets obviously reduced.
There's nothing to add. ∯WBGconverse 02:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It does not contravine the earlier sources 1- valuation, 2- cancelled ipo with DV conviction 3- sale a three years latter. If any is removed from the lead all should, as the most notable seems to be the canceled IPO due to his conviction. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, my objection was to the issue of linking RadOne sale-time devaluation with Chahal's DV in absence of any source clearly linking them.
The IPO failure is far better suited at the DV section, in light of the additional context (and intricate details) provided over there. Also, redundant coverage is not allowed. ∯WBGconverse 13:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
There's no problem with information being mentioned in two sections if it is relevant and provides context for both of them. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Whilst a source is indeed present in the latter part, I remain interested in hearing views of Shyam (since he edited that out) about mentioning same content twice and other aspects. ∯WBGconverse 13:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the lede

I would not like to get deeply involved in this, so I am just passing on a thought for consideration here.

I just did a quick and very unscientific survey of our entries on otherwise notable people accused or convicted of domestic violence and similar crimes. As far as I am able to tell, it is somewhat rare for us to include those convictions in the lede. My opinion of that wider issue isn't particularly relevant here, but I include it just so you know where I'm coming from: I think it should be in the lede far more often than it is. A classic case here would be Chris Brown.

However, given that for whatever reason it is probably relatively rare for us to include it, I think that as a matter of consideration in a biography that has been the subject of a fair amount of contentious accusations of problematic editing, it is worth discussing in a fresh way exactly how this should be handled. That is to say, without coming down one way or the other on this, I recommend that good editors, not involved in past controversies here, should review the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Can I take this, if other users involved in edit wars have no objections? Shyam (T/C) 12:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If your intended methodology is to start just removing stuff without waiting for anyone to respond here, then I object very strongly. When Jimbo said review the question, I doubt he meant for people to start blanking portions of the article with no regard for the extensive prior discussions. Nor do I think it necessary for those involved in prior discussions to refrain from being involved here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
This edits were made based on keeping in mind of WP:BLP. Could you put your justification for revert? Shyam (T/C) 13:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I see the info provided was redundant and over exaggerate than the necessary. I feel Domestic violence was overemphasised. Could you put your rationale. Shyam (T/C) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If you can't wait more than 3 minutes for a reply, then I recommend avoiding contentious articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The justification was in the edit summary. I'm afraid I'll need to see more than a vague wave to BLP to justify the blanket removal of sourced content. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the page had redundant and unnecessary info about the domestic violence made by the subject. Wikipedia is not news and on an article it doesn't require to mention each and every incident related to. Reply awaited and meanwhile I am reverting your edit. If you want, we can go to arbitration committee. If you revert, I am afraid of you getting blocked as Jimbo has already intervened. Thanks Shyam (T/C) 13:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
No need to take this to ArbCom. ANI has been quite effective in dealing with similar incidents of whitewashing in the past. I highly recommend that you undo your reversion of my edit. And I've already replied, so you can quit with the gaslighting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaving the rhetoric apart, the IPO edit seems justified in light of the stalemate a few threads above. Not due to the original reason provided in the edit summary, which was false (source was in the DV section) but due to his subsequent explanations over here. ∯WBGconverse 13:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Jimbo has already mentioned that it requires a complete fresh look. You seem to be quiet biased with the user and may have some personal grudges and hence want to exaggerate. I want to put here my neutral point of view. I hope this helps. Be cool. Shyam (T/C) 13:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Whom are you replying to? Please recheck the indentation levels. ∯WBGconverse 13:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Jimbo is entitled to his personal opinion, but his word is not law. Furthermore, I doubt blanket reversion or edit warring is what he had in mind. As for your personal attacks, you're just wasting your time with those. I've been attacked and threatened numerous times on this page. You could ask the editors who made those comments how well that strategy worked. Actually, you can't ask them because they've all been banned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
As another editor taking a fresh look here, I support Shyam’s edits. The page was not written with BLP standards. Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no personal attacks. My personal apologies if it hurted you. That was not my intention at all. I am not saying he is the law. But first of all, I haven't blanked it. The incident has been balanced based on the length of the article. The subject is a living entity based on WP:BLP the section on domestic violence was overemphasised. Shyam (T/C) 13:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Rajeshbieee. Even if the user involved in edit wars are not convinced, I am proposing to approach ArbCom. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 13:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Socks and their ducking.
I support the views expressed by Jimbo and (T/C) as too much focus was put on DV case on this page.Ithas resulted in tooany edit warring and wholesale reversion as if the DV was only thing significant on the page. Als couple of edito have tried to ensure the focus DV case. Lets improve this page and provide a neutral point of view. Jagooji (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
That's not what Jimbo said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
hey LEPRICAVARK (talk) moot point too much focus on keeping one particular section in focus is wrong in my pov. There are too many other things on this page for which optant edit wars and wholesale reversions have happened. These must stop as the intention to keep focus on one topic hampers a reliability of a page in my view.Jagooji (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Jagooji, How much weight should be in the article for an event that has had such an impact on Chahal then? Should we ignore it totally and focus on honorary degrees (sorry, WBG, not trying to poke you on this)? If this didn't have any impact on him, a couple of lines in personal life is probably right, but it has had a big impact. Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Removing DV from lead is obviously nonsensical. As to honorary doctorates in lead, largely agree with your assertion, a few threads up above. ∯WBGconverse 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Stridently disagree about the removal of the domestic violence from the lead. It has had a significant impact on Chahal aside from the obvious jail part. He's been fired from two companies he's started and significantly tarnished his image - you don't see him on TV shows as you used to. The hyper-quick removal is just a shame. Ravensfire (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the version prior to the change. NPOV demands that we include material that's relevant to the subject in proportional weight and ensure it's been put into context. Let's focus on the DV conviction - there has been significant coverage around them and over time as well. In large part, it's because those convictions have had significant impact on Chahal's life. Twice he's been fired as CEO from companies he started as a direct result of those convictions. That's WP:WEIGHT and context right there. One company had to cancel an IPO because of the conviction. Again, an impact of his actions and the context for how they affected the world. We're adding in things like honorary degrees that are just a thank you for the $, but something like this is removed? That's pushing a POV to ignore the negatives. Ravensfire (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Note the framing. And those articles pre-date the appeal court's judgment and the start of the jail sentence that led to (tabloidy) headlines such as this one. I didn't find any coverage of the subject in NYT or WSJ (surprising!), and the most recent article in Washington Post also dates back to 2016, and was headlined, The rise and fall of a Silicon Valley mogul accused of domestic violence.
Given that, I cannot see how this articles lede can possibly detail the "rise" and ignore the "fall" by eliminating, or even downplaying, the domestic violence convictions.
Side note: the history of domestic violence aside, the article lede and body currently contains some fluffy and even false claims. Example of the latter: In 2010, he was listed in Business Insider's "30 Founders Under 30" CEO category. As the cited refernce shows, the list was not one created by or attributable to Business Insider. Rather it was a user-generated list produced by Under30ceo.com (redlink), which was simply re-published by the BI website (In contrast, this, is an example of a list produced by BI itself). There is also no cited source for Bloomberg Businessweek also named him among the 15 best young entrepreneurs of the year; on the other hand the listing by Complex checks out. The article content needs to be reviewed for other cruft and misrepresentations. Abecedare (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
My search of the website didn't find it for some reason, but WSJ did have an investigative piece related to Chahal: RadiumOne Worked to Save IPO Amid Scandal with the dek, "Directors, lawyers hoped to minimize fallout from abuse case against Gurbaksh Chahal". Makes the case for inclusion of the domestic abuse stronger IMO. In fact, the WSJ article perhaps needs to be discussed in the RadiumOne section of the wikipedia article instead of being relegated to the Personal life appendix. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The BusinessInsider bit was added by @TheSandDoctor:, a longstanding admin, over this edit and hence, I will allow him the oppurtunity of responding to your query.
  • I think that the Bloomberg bit was added by me and take the responsibility of providing source in a moment or so. I am pretty sure that I have noted the source over some t/p thread. ∯WBGconverse 16:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
That appears to have been an error on my part accidentally misattributing, thanks for pointing out. I have corrected the attribution and added WBG's above archive link to cite the second part. The fact that Business Insider chose to republish is still interesting and noteworthy. Thanks for the ping Winged Blades of Godric. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks WBG and TheSandDoctor for the quick response and remediation.
I am not not too familiar with Business Insider (and not at all with Under30ceo) but per the former's WP:RSP entry, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." But I'll leave it to the article's regular editors to see whether any further edits to the current description of the Under30ceo/BI listing are required. Don't mean to let this side issue distract from the central question raised by Jimbo's first post. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that I have removed the BI piece; syndicated feeds are not notable esp. for lead. ∯WBGconverse 12:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Back on topic: How many times do we have to rehash this discussion? I'm getting deja-vu all over again, all over again and again. User Shyam, whose account was mostly dormant until December 2018, suddenly appears on the scene to make major cuts to this article without consulting anybody. Meanwhile, another sockpuppet shows up to back Shyam. We've been here before many, many times. Chahal is a public figure known for his entrepreneurship and his domestic violence abuse. Both belong in this article. Both belong in the lede, the introductory part of the article that summarizes what the subject is or is know for. Chisme (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I took a look and I don't see how we can exclude domestic violence from the lede. The nutshell version of the article, at least based on what is in the article, is that Chahal was a successful entreprenuer but is no longer one, and the reason why he isn't is because of the domestic violence case. These are the only salient features of the article and they should, therefore, be mentioned in the lead. If the domestic violence case is a setback (as in the Chris Brown article that Jimbo mentions) rather than a defining moment, we can debate whether or not it should be in the lede but, again basing this solely on the article content, that's not the case. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with RegentsPark. I first got involved in this article about three months ago, in response to this request at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive297#Gurbaksh Chahal. At the time the article was focused mostly on the DV convictions (see here). I restored the "Awards and honors" and the "Philanthropy" sections that had been blanked. I was reverted various times and got drawn into a long debate at the talk page of the article, but at the end the content was restored. After that, the pendulum swung in the other direction and I had to fight against edits that in my opinion tilted the balance by adding fluff or removed notable sourced content. Through a very long and hard process over this past months (with various blocks, sock puppetry, threats, protections and other incidents) together, all the editors involved, have been finally able to reach a reasonable consensus, and the article was brought to the much more balanced version we have now. I think that all that previous work should be respected, as many of us have invested lots of hours to try bring some order into the previous mess. The current version is, in my opinion, good. The DV needs to remain in the lead as at the present time it is an integral part of the notability of the subject. It had a deep impact in his life and his business and most in depth coverage stems from it. The same applies for his, also clearly notable, business achievements. In my opinion both need to be included, and the current version does so in a balanced way. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Lead looks significantly better (thanks to @Winged Blades of Godric:!). I'm wondering about the last bit though. It says his career was adversly affected, should it be more specific as in both cases he was fired as the CEO from companies he started (which feels pretty significant to me). Right now it's "He has claimed of innocence, throughout and his career has been adversely affected". Maybe "He has claimed of innocence throughout, but after each cases, he lost his job as CEO of a company he started." I'm not really thrilled on the word-smithing, but the existing feels a touch awkward and not as specific as it ought to be given the significance of the founder being released. Ravensfire (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Valid points. But, He has claimed of innocence throughout, but after each case, he lost his job as CEO of a company he started. seem to taunt the subject. Talk-page watchers might have a better line. ∯WBGconverse 05:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, yeah, I noticed that. Maybe move the part about the board actions to the prior sentence? So right after "2013 and 2018", add "After each conviction, he was removed as CEO by the respective board of directors."? Ravensfire (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I have taken a shot at rewording it, based on the last comment. Please feel free to revert or improve. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Question: Do the sources reflect if he also claimed to be innocent on the second incident? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, I prefer how it was before. An extra line here doesn't add any encyclopedic value. AruneekBiswas (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Please note that AruneekBiswas has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of PunjabCinema07. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • CC's reverts - How does mentioning (a) that BlueLithium received significant acclaim (we spend two-three lines in body about it's market-position, industry awards and all that stuff), (b) adding HK based startup and (c) the 500 million USD figure as covered in numerous sources (which notes of his fall from CEO of a 500 million USD company to straight termination) affect balance of lead? ∯WBGconverse 03:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Adding that BlueLithium "received significant acclaim" to the lead of the subject and not the company seems unnecessary and as a subjective claim, borderline promotional. Should we also add the sourced and relevant fact to the lead that "He was sentenced to three years' probation, ordered to pay a fine, and compelled to undergo a 52-week domestic violence training course along with 25 hours of community service" to the lead? Reaching a consensus took a lot of time, uncontroversial improvements are fine, but please don't introduce major changes without prior discussion, and if reverted, please do follow WP:BRD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
That's hardly promotional, sorry.
W.r.t to the current body content, the paragraph on DV in lead (including jail term, terminations and all that) is totally DUE. His notability derives from (a) running highly acclaimed ad-tech startups (who raked millions and were literally market leaders) and (b) going rogue via the 2 DV cases. Both need to be covered, now that we have a good body.
It's weird to argue that the success of his companies is not a derivative of him. Like over the lead of Bill Gates (good article standards, we shall all try to emulate) we do say:- ...it (Microsoft) went on to become the world's largest personal computer software company. If you are bothered about subjectivity of acclaim, market position of BL in UK/USA will be a fair substitute. See lead of Steve Jobs and like personalities; all of their leads note the reason behind the notability/acclaim of companies found/chaired by them in a phrase or two.
ClickAgents is famed for its sale. BlueLithium for being market-leaders, overall performance and then, sale. RadiumOne for that 500 peak.
No clue about why we need to wikilink domestic violence - that's a highly common term in (literally) every place of the world unlike battery. ∯WBGconverse
Page @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: for comments. ∯WBGconverse 12:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no comment atm, I'm not very uptodate on the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: Do you support expanding the lead to clarify that "He was sentenced to three years' probation, ordered to pay a fine, and compelled to undergo a 52-week domestic violence training course along with 25 hours of community service"?
Microsoft and Apple have their own articles and are both leading companies, clearly more notable than Bluelithium, that currently does not have a Wikipedia article. WP:PEACOCK terms like acclaimed or "highly acclaimed" should be avoided and personally I don't think there is a need for more details about the companies at the lead, the current version seems balanced enough and I think it was hard enough to reach a consensus if there aren't compelling reasons to add it, I would leave it as is. About the Domestic violence wikilink, the article expands greatly beyond the simple definition that most readers might be familiar with, including legislation, etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Sort of meh. In line with the financial details of the first two companies (which were already provided over lead), I have merely added the 500$ bit since that was heavily reported over multiple sources. Besides that, some negligible copy-edits which you seem to have not taken issue with. And, I think we are in agreement. Regards, ∯WBGconverse 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Just noting two edits:-
In tune to the coverage by multiple sources highlighting the millionaire-at-18 aspect rather than the founding-a-company-at-16, I have chosen to slightly edit the second line. Copyedits welcome.
That BL does not have a standalone article, I have chosen to add an objective fact about it being the 5th largest ad-network in USA during the sale. The sources at that time had widely noted it, crediting the subject for it. ∯WBGconverse 12:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Has anybody noted the stunning disparity in coverage of the subject across India (t.b.s. Punjabi) and USA based media? Coverage in Punjabi dailies for the last 3-4 years has been consistently about his philanthropic activities (and esp. Punjab2030), with DV being near-entirely relegated out. ∯WBGconverse 10:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
CC, I will be much obliged if you had chosen to comment over here, rather than vague hand waving at need of consensus. Trying to prevent any and all edits under the guise of an absence of pre-consensus, w/o any explicit objection, is plainly being silly. The current para about philanthropy (even excluding the vernacular sources I have intentionally not even mentioned, lest the section becomes some kind of trivia-directory of whatever social good [image recovery?] he has done in India) is large enough to merit a line at lead. ∯WBGconverse 10:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Any changes to the balanced version we work so hard to achieved needs to be discussed and a consensus must be reached; specially for the lead. I hope you won't make me elaborate on that. I would not add something that to me seems promotional. If you disagree, please feel free to create a new section and we can debate your proposal. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Why do we need a new section? There have been promotional stuff that evaded our scrutiny (BI piece, being one example as gauged by Abecedare) but given the current extent of contents of bio, how is one line about his philanthropic activities, primarily stemming from vernacular coverage, promotional? ∯WBGconverse 12:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
By new section, I meant a new section on this talk page to try to get more editors involved. To me, the two key points that make this subject notable, are the successful companies he created and the impact of his domestic violence convictions. Yes, he made various donations as many other successful businessmen do, and received some coverage (many of it local) from it, but it is not one of the most important contents that needs to be summarized in the lead per WP:LEAD. You yourself removed the term philanthropist from the lead in the past (see here) and then from the body (see here) and in your edit summary you labeled it as PR stuff. Please remember that you even reverted me when I restored it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And, I will still revert you if I see something like 'philanthropist'/'author' at the very first line. My other revert was entirely dependent on then-prevalent sourcing (only 1 source), which has been since heavily increased.
As to local coverage, do we deem vernacular media with monthly circulation of a few lacs, under its purview? ∯WBGconverse 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Please review the article's history. You did not revert me adding it to the lead. I would no have done that edit. Somebody else did, way before my first edit in this article, not me. You reverted me after I restored the sourced philanthropy section in the body (see here) that you had previously blanked (see here) labeling it "PR stuff (Entrepreneur mag)" you did so various times ([16], [17]).
When you reverted in the past, the lead was only just over two lines and philanthropy was only one word. You say you would revert that again and labeled it as PR stuff. Why does it surprise you that adding it to the lead (not the body) even if it is not in the first phrase may also seem promotional to me. You are willing to revert if one word is added to the first phrase of the lead but think is "plain silly" for me to revert a whole phrase: "Chahal also runs a philanthropic foundation, which contributes towards various social causes in India." even though I am merely asking for it to be debated on the talk page first. Do you still label my actions as "vague hand waving at need of consensus"? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
To reiterate:- My other revert was entirely dependent on then-prevalent sourcing (only 1 source). That one source was Entrepreneur Mag. Once you add vernacular dailies, which I have since located, the dynamics become quite different.
To be fair, the word philanthropic can be trimmed from my added line. Not seeing any purpose. ∯WBGconverse 02:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The lead must be a summary of the most important contents of an article per WP:LEAD. The subject's charity foundation that received mostly local coverage, hardly seems to fit that requirement. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Americacentric bias? How on Earth can publication(s) with circulation figures of few lacs and covering an area of over 50,000 sq.km. be deemed as local news? ∯WBGconverse 16:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Bias? hardly. I don't think that the subject's notability stems from India. You repeatedly reverted and labeled the inclusion of sourced charity contributions as Public Relations. If you continue to think that it should be included in the lead, I suggest you open a new section on this talk page to try to engage other editors. I don't think it should be included, but I am always open to change if the arguments are convincing or if consensus goes the other way. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Why public charity shouldn’t be in lead? Subject is notable for it and has received coverage for those activities too. WP:LEAD should summarise whole article, Indian coverages are not local and I agree with concerns of WBG. It should be included in lead. (Please ping)— Brihaspati (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD: The lead should "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." the subject has received coverage for his charity, and it is included in the body, but is not what makes him notable nor one of the most important points. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see a new voice. That MOS:LEAD states Balance new information with old, giving all information due weight, trying to remove the entire locus of vernacular coverage by lensing the subject from an America-centric locus of importance does not hold water. ∯WBGconverse 08:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, you are interpreting it wrong, and surprisingly, you are leaving out some important details. Right before your quote, MOS:LEAD actually reads: "most recent is not necessarily most notable". In the past, you repeatedly labeled coverage by reliable sources of his charity as "Public Relations" and engaged in edit warring to remove it various times from both, the body and lead. Now, fortunately, nobody is proposing to remove it from the article, I had to argue to keep that content. I am glad that now you also think that way and also that you added more charity donations with Indian sources. I think that the content I restored and the recent content you added do both belong in the body as reflected by the current version. To me however, it is also clear that the charity donations are not one of the most important points of this BLP, and therefore, even though it does belong on the body, inclusion on the lead is not justified. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Denial in the lead

I have no particular view on whether to include the domestic violence conviction in the lead (though I think removal might be a hard sell as it's the reason he lost his job and is now in went to jail). But the fact that he denies the charges? That doesn't belong in the lead. It can go in the body, but not as the last word. We're not a tabloid, we don't give the subject the last word, especially in WP:MANDY situations. The court is the arbiter of fact, and he's in jail. If there's an appeal we could note that, but his denials amount to the convicted saying the court is wrong, and Wikipedia doesn't give the claims of the convicted anything like parity with the findings of a court - regardless of the merits. Guy (help!) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello @JzG: WP:MANDY is just an essay. While I could agree with that criteria in many cases, for this subject, that claim had some implications explained further in the body, relating to his guilty plead and the board of directors of one of his companies. It is covered by multiple sources and attribution to the subject is provided. Since attribution is provided (court vs subject) I don't see a risk of readers taking both claims at equal value. But most importantly, the current version of the lead is the result of a very long and hard consensus building process (as you can easily check by looking at the sections above) to find the right balance. Any proposed change must go through that same process, If there is consensus to remove it, then I will of course have no objection. In my opinion, the current version is fine as it is. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, the point is: "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" The final word goes to the court. They have tested his claim of innocence and found it false. Guy (help!) 23:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Guy. Both are true, both are sourced, both are notable, and both are in the article with proper attribution. The fact that the subject himself claims to be innocent does not create a false balance, because since it is attributed to the subject himself, readers can also interpret that "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?". And as explained above it does have implications expanded in the body. I don't see a need for removing it. FYI, even though it has no bearing on the current discussion, please note that the subject is no longer in jail.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I don't believe he is currently in jail per the article itself? By the timeline within it, he was released in October 2018? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, oh, true. Guy (help!) 08:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, No, you are giving a false equivalence to a judicial finding of fact and conviction, and a personal denial. That is not how Wikipedia works. Guy (help!) 07:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Good morning @JzG: I suggest that while we wait for other comments, we may just agree to disagree on this. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, you can disagree, but Wikipedia policy is not to give undue weight to personal views that are contradicted by authorities. In this case the court is the authority: the literal arbiter of fact. In the court case, prosecution and defense have equal weight. After conviction, not so much. Guy (help!) 08:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Before a conviction has been secured no details should be included per WP:BLPCRIME. Again, in the article the conviction and the subject's claim do not have equal weight at all, neither in depth of detail or in placement. Due weight does not necessarily mean eliminating a fact that reliable sources have deemed notable and that ties with other facts elaborated in the body. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, "In 2013, Chahal was convicted for domestic violence and battery, and was sentenced to probation. He was terminated from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of Directors. In 2016, after new charges of domestic violence against a second woman with whom he was in a relationship, his probation was revoked. He resigned as CEO of Gravity4, and served six months in jail."
Convicted. Probation. Probation revoked. Jail. That's the findings of the court. His denial is routine and irrelevant. Guy (help!) 16:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello @JzG: I believe that our role as editors is simple, we should consider notability of facts based on the coverage received by reliable sources. The subject claimed that he was forced to take the guilty plead by the board of directors. Reliable sources considered that fact notable enough to report. I am sorry, but I personally don´t think that there is any policy based reason to justify removal. I also think that due weight and proper attribution has been followed. Again, unless there are new contributions by other editors to this discussion, I think it's best if we agree to disagree on this and keep the lead that was built thru consensus. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon, and the facts here are that he was convicted of domestic assault and paroled, and parole was revoked after a second allegation. Any denial will have been weighed by the court in making that determination. So promting his denial as rebuttal, creates a false equivalence between his own words, with the obvious motivation, and the court. Guy (help!) 20:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry JzG but I don't see it that way. We are just going in circles. I see no false equivalence since attribution is given and the sentencing is described in much more detail. On top of previous arguments and as I also mentioned before. I think readers can realize the obvious difference between a court's sentence and a claim by him who was sentenced. I am open to hear other editors views, If the majority agrees to remove it, lets do that. In the mean time I don't think making further comments on this matter bring us anywhere. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, clearly you don't see it that way. I think you're wrong. Personal protestations never trump court findings - even when people are actually innocent. Putting the subject's denial as the final word is how newspapers work, not encyclopaedias. Guy (help!) 09:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello @JzG: I disagree with the argument that including a claim of a condemned person trumps in any way the court finding or the sentence. I however, do find your claim that the current placing could be interpreted as a final word reasonable. I think changing the placement of the claim could fix that. If there are no objections we could change the text to:
"In 2013, Chahal was convicted for domestic violence and battery, and was sentenced to probation. He claimed innocence, but was terminated from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of Directors. In 2016, after new charges of domestic violence against a second woman with whom he was in a relationship, his probation was revoked. He resigned as CEO of Gravity4, and served six months in jail."
Most coverage of his claim of innocence was relating to the first conviction anyways, so I think that the proposed change would be an improvement to the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I can't make up my mind on weighing BLP vs MANDY in this debate, but the current version which puts his claim of innocence at the fag end in mere 3 words is much better. For the record, sources have also covered his claims of innocencence in the second DV but did not go the extent of writing pieces devoted to that very locus, unlike in the first DV. ∯WBGconverse 10:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon looks good to me, that was very much what I was trying to get across. Guy (help!) 14:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @JzG: I am really glad we could reach a consensus. I agree that moving it from the end without removing it, seems like the best solution. @Winged Blades of Godric: is there a strong reason for you to oppose the consensus between Guy and myself? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The proposed phrasing looks weird to my eyes, moving the innocence locus to the core of the DV para and creating a stark false contrast between his proclamation of innocence to the firing by BoD. I am neither sure that it is an improvement nor satisfied about why we shall mention about his claimed innocence in first case, but not second. ∯WBGconverse 02:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please review the previous discussion, the reason to include it in the lead is because of the coverage received about the subject's claim to have been asked to plead guilty by the board, and how they still removed him, as included in the body. Nothing notable for the second conviction, so to me it makes sense to move it there. It also addresses Guy's concern of due weight due to placement as a final word. Any other input? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric I think it's fine to say he denied it in court as long as we then follow that up with the conviction and subsequent revocation of parole. That puts the correct amount of weight on the protestation of innocence (i.e. some, but very little). Guy (help!) 11:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I broadly agree that his pleadings to innocence matter nothing, that he has been convicted. However, as CC notes, his blog-posts alleging of coercion by RadOne-BoD to enter into a plea bargain and subsequent mutual settlement have been intensively covered by numerous media sources and deserve a mention in lead. Now, contrasting his statement of innocence with the BoD-firing is quite weird to come across for a new reader (ought not that claim be usually contrasted with the judicial pronouncement, if at all, for a general criminal?) but then, we cannot go into intricate details of allegations of coercion at lead. Thus, on balance, it seemes best to me to leave a hanging claim of innocence at the fag end, which additionally covers his claim of innocence in DV-2, that have been sparsely reported in media. ∯WBGconverse 16:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please feel free to propose a better wording. I do agree with Guy, that it's best to associate it with the first conviction, which is what received enough coverage and is expanded in the body justifying inclusion on the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
If there are no better proposals or other input, I will make the proposed edit, as agreed with Guy tomorrow. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There's no hurry or deadline..... Wait, please. ∯WBGconverse 05:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all on my side. How much time do you need? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As I have already said, the current wording looks better to me than the proposed version. But, at the same time, I do think that the current wording can be indeed improved. ∯WBGconverse 08:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Right, but we need to address the fact that the claim of innocence is only relevant in the lead in connection with the first conviction, so I fully agree with JzG that the claim of innocence should not be placed at the end. Can you come up with your proposal for improvement by the end of the week or would you need more time? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the claim of innocence should not go at the end. Personally, I think CrystallizedCarbon's proposed wording places an appropriate amount of weight on Chahal's denial. The current wording places too much weight on the denial. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with current version of LEAD. It is pretty much neutral.-- Brihaspati (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
If there is no better proposal by tomorrow I'll go ahead and incorporate the version as agreed with Guy and Lepricavark. WBG, feel free to take your time. When you can come up with your proposed improvements we can try to get a new consensus. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the version agreed to by Guy and Lepricavark? Can you lay it out here so I can read it? Chisme (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Chisme: This is what I proposed on this section as a consensus solution to the discussion with Guy and was supported by Leprikavark. WBG would like to improve it. You can read the comments above to see the rationale for moving the claim of innocence from the end to the context of the first conviction only: "In 2013, Chahal was convicted for domestic violence and battery, and was sentenced to probation. He claimed innocence, but was terminated from his role as CEO of RadiumOne by the Board of Directors. In 2016, after new charges of domestic violence against a second woman with whom he was in a relationship, his probation was revoked. He resigned as CEO of Gravity4, and served six months in jail." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I just made the change as discussed. Please feel free to propose any improvements. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

I would just like to highlight that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has engaged in disruptive editing on subject's page and his partner's page Rubina Bajwa, please revert his changes.

Also, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been blocked for six months by User:Wugapodes on February 22nd. (Per consensus at ANI (discussion); violation of civility-related editing restriction) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.236.203 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=edit&section=570 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.236.203 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal/Archive_1&oldid=1136780643"