Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If the other person is not notable, then per WP:PUBLICFIGURE they should not be included. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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,

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Categories