Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal

message: Whether to include Chahal's domestic battery conviction in this article's leded has been debated many times. The overwhelming consensus was it belongs there. Let's not rehash this for the hundredth time. Chisme (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . This debate is already closed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly concur.  See the archives (even ignoring the sockpuppets). It's a significant part of the notability of this person, and resulted in significant impact to his career. These aren't accusations, but convictions.  They belong in the lead. Ravensfire (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: This debate is closed. The charges do belong in the lead. The efforts from the paid editors were to remove them from the lead. Personally I do not see a need to reopen this issue just to move it to the first paragraph. In the same way, I defended including his relationship with Bajwa in the article, but also, I do not think that it should be included on the first line of the lead. To make those changes you would need to reach a consensus here. My advice would be to let the giant sleep. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic battery in lede

message: I edited this page some years ago and was reminded of the article's subject by this recent article . It seems like there's been quite a wrestling match with paid editors since then. One result seems to be that the article no longer lists the battery incidents in the first paragraph. This seems out of alignment with the reading and weight given by WP:RS. Looking at the top Google news hits from WP:RS, these incidents are in the headline describing his notability , provided as immediate context about him , or they are the subject of the article , , although there are also articles that cover his relationship without mentioning this part of his past ,. So, basically, wikipedia is fairly rare in simply portraying him as an entrepreneur, with the battery incients in the fourth graph. It doesn't seem like this was a decision made by the unpaid editors, but rather some trailing aftermath of the tangle with the paid ones, but I might be wrong about that. It seems appropriate to align the article with the sources again, including the high-profile relationship. I'll make the change in a moment, using the language that I think was consensus for a while. Of course, open to discussion... Chris vLS (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This debate is closed. The charges do belong in the lead. The efforts from the paid editors were to remove them from the lead. Personally I do not see a need to reopen this issue just to move it to the first paragraph. In the same way, I defended including his relationship with Bajwa in the article, but also, I do not think that it should be included on the first line of the lead. To make those changes you would need to reach a consensus here. My advice would be to let the giant sleep. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2022

message: Faizal batliwala, who made numerous edits to this article beginning last July, has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for advertising or promotion and violating the foundation's terms of use. The block was issued a week ago and batliwala has not contested it. I have to assume he/she was blocked for attempting to white-wash or obscure Chahal's domestic violence conviction. 
Since batliwala did not contest the block, can we assume he/she is guilty of violating the Wiki rules? For all I know, some of batliwala's edits are valid, but all the edits he made to this article are nonetheless suspect. I propose to examine all his/her edits and reverse them all since they were made it bad faith. Any objections? Chisme (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I will say is that we should not roll back their edits purely because they later ended up blocked. If they have contributed positively, even in a small part, then good for them. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I see that they were blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Can't say I'm surprised given the extensive prior efforts to turn this article into a puff piece. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of edits to this article by Faizal batliwala

message: first of all, a lot of the content was added by User:Faizal batliwala, who is now banned.
this editor seemed to focus entirely on Gurbaksh, adding numerous claims that do not have any citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&diff=prev&oldid=1037720344
this one claims Gurbaksh is a sikh, without any WP:RS. i dispute this claim.
there are many Hindus these days who have "singh" in their middle name and are born in punjab. 
in fact, it seems a lot of people are called sikhs if they are recent converts. 
a prominent example of this phenomenon is Harpal Singh Kumar. now, i should emphasise i'm not making calls on who is a Sikh or not.
the fact is Sikhs are an ethnoreligious group. being born with the surname kumar strongly suggests this criteria is not met.
in the case of gurbaksh, there are no sources at all. in fact, the only source proclaiming him as such, ironically enough, is his own:
https://bnn.network/world/india/bnn-founder-gurbaksh-chahal-targeted-with-death-threats-amid-criticism-of-khalistan-movement/
this does not meet any of the required criteria to withstand moderation. it must be removed.
i'd go further and say mr kumar, while wearing a turban (some jains do this too, by the way), is not a sikh either.
people are ignoring the ethnoreligious component of being sikh. just because you convert (something we discourage, by the way), doesn't mean you are one.
i am sure mr kumar has done many good things in his life ("fighting cancer" etc), but we do not need, nor have we ever wanted, people representing us who are not actually one of us.
you cannot just say you are something that your genealogy cannot support. gurbaksh is an easy example of this.
 someone needs to clean this page up and probably restore it to the form before mr faizal batliwala probably edited it on gurbaksh's behalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.51.113.29 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  gurbaksh is not a sikh 

message: BNN looks like another of his ventures, I came looking for his name after seeing him as founder there. Not sure if it's big enough to be mentioned, but being a news business, I would expect some details of his association. 103.51.113.29 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just created a separate article for BNN Breaking here DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of BNN?