Talk:Sanjay Gupta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What

What is the meaning of the following line under the Links section?:

I will one day be Sanjay Gupta shubes, one day.

[edit] Pic

That CNN screencap is pretty awful. Can anyone find a better pic of Dr. Gupta? Isopropyl 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gupta.sanjay.html Errorneous 00:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

I removed

Indian-American

from the place where nationality belongs, in the lead, bcz that is not a nationality in the WP:MOSBIO sense: see Category:Indian-Americans. What passport does he carry? (If two, separate them by "and", not a hyphen.) Beyond that, perhaps the lead can support more info w/in the MoS, but if he was born in India say "Indian-born"; if he merely has Indian ancestors, say "Indian-descended". And of course documentation is desirable, as some are likely to put down what is to them "obvious" w/o checking a source or stating what they think their wording means.
--Jerzy•t 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, xxxx-American is a common Wikipedia usage to describe ethnic origin. An "Indian-American" is commonly understood to be an American of Indian descent, just as "Italian-Americans" are Americans of Italian descent. Documentation is always welcome, but it is rather hair-splitting to demand evidence of Indian origins for someone named Sanjay Gupta. Essex9999 68.83.140.156 05:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Controversy

they way this section it is, it is unclear if Gupta agreed to operate or not. Please clear this up. Also, you do not "don ___ for ___" i believe, adding to the confusion. either way, dont pussyfoot around what happened, just say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.112.223 (talk) 05:22, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

I've noticed that Dr. Gupta pronounces his first name as "Sahn-jay." Is this an Americanization? I thought the name was pronounced "Sun-jay." Essex9999 68.83.140.156 05:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu American

Is there a citation to back up the inclusion of the Hindu American category? --Crunch 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Moore Criticizes Gupta

Seemed to be getting a decent amount of "meta-news" coverage, mostly from right-wing sources (Drudge, etc.), so justified as an update. Wbroun 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by CHC: The following sentence: "A further review into the matter reveals some information on Paul Keckley, one of the analysts interviewed during Gupta's segment: Keckley has a primarily corporate background[2] and has donated to campaigns of the Republican Party in the past.[3]" I am not taking a stand on the accuracy or inaccuracy of this sentence, but (a) it seems to dangle, lacking a response from Gupta, and (b) it seems to lead to an entirely different topic (Moore's point-of-view). I don't think this sentence belongs here, at least not at this point in the story... I'd wait for some dust to settle. I'm commenting rather than taking the edit pen into my own hands. Thanks for considering.

That sentence was gone when I got here, but I gave the Moore debate it's own subsection, and added more information. I constricted More's list of more than 10 complaints to 3. I also deleted a poorly written and out of place sentence which said that Gupta apologized for a mistake, and added a statement to that effect in a more appropriate place. Fsu23phd 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the Michael Moore controversy subsection in this article is a bit biased, towards Moore. Most of the quotes from organzations and individuals were saying that Gupta was wrong. Surely, the entire media does not agree with Michael Moore. Can anyone find a reference that favors Mr. Gupta, because in the argument he did bring up some valid points against Moore.

is that so, anonymous editor from Georgia? Ripe 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can find a reference that favors Gupta. I tried and failed. I read an email list of Deshi journalists, and they also said Gupta and CNN were brownnosing the insurance industry. The final proof for me is the comments by Schwitzer, who is one of the most reliable and objective sources for analyzing health care coverage, which I added to the article.
Schwitzer went beyond the ping-pong debate over details and addressed the fundamental issue, which is that CNN hadn't covered the basic problems with the health care system in the U.S., while Moore did. The U.S. news media has done a surprisingly poor job of covering comparing the U.S. health care system to systems elsewhere (I've searched the periodical indexes), and they know it. Moore really did a better job of journalism than the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN.
Furthermore, his main point that other, government-run, health care systems do a better job than we do, at half the cost, is a conclusion that you can find repeatedly in major medical journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine, which Gupta reads, although he never reported on the many articles in the NEJM which made Moore's pont.
I was looking for knowledgeable negative reviews of Sicko and I couldn't find one. Even David Gratzer, who writes for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, wouldn't confront Moore directly on the issues.
I think this is one of those cases where you can't give equal weight to both sides because one side, Gupta, is basically wrong, and the other side, Moore, is basically right.
Gupta was right, though, to get a comment from Paul Keckley, the insurance industry spokesman. That's standard balanced journalism. It's not fair to fault him for that. Nbauman 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
But, at least according to Moore, Gupta claimed that Keckley wasn't an industry spokesman; he claimed that CNN had checked and that Keckley's sole afiliation was with Vanderbilt University: "His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael. We checked his conflict of interest. We do ask those questions." The false representation was the problem. 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that the 02:57, 11 July 2007 contribution from 69.138.21.119 added the editorial comment (subsequently removed) that "Nevertheless, Gupta did raise some interesting points such as the impending bankruptcy of Medicare, a program that was highly touted by Moore in his film." GeoBytes reports the IP as Silver Spring, MD, and by an amazing coincidence Kaiser Permanente has offices there. Ripe 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From the video, as far as I can tell, Moore was arguably defeated on two points- the one I edited in about Canadian health care wait times, and the cherry picking facts assertation about the BBC article. The rest of the debate, Moore arguably won. I edited in the first one, should I add the second for balance? The Cherry picking facts thing goes like this: Gupta accused Michael of picking data that suited him and ignoring the rest. Basically, Moore used a "unsourced" BBC article to assert that Cuba spends $251 per capita on health care, while he simultaneously used NHS data that the US spends $7??? per capita. Either A, the article is untrustworthy, and he brazenly used a made-up figure of $251 to get a nice sounding number in there, or B, the article is trustworthy, and Moore ignored the number in it to go to a different number that is calculated in a different way for his own purposes. --Prime642 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article may be "unsourced" but as Moore explains: "Actually, the number 'Sicko' cited for per capita Cuban spending on health care - $251, a number widely cited by the BBC and other outlets - comes from the United Nations Human Development Report, helpfully linked on our website. Here it is again: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html." Alas i am 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately you cannot, under WP:NOR, go through the video and decide where Moore is right or wrong and where Gupta is right or wrong. You have to do what I did, which is find a reliable source, like Schwitzer, who comments on it. Nbauman 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Prime642: please don't delete comments on talk pages, even if they were your own. thanks. Ripe 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as you can probably tell, I'm a bit of an amateur at editing...--Prime642 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone's bio shouldn't have more text dedicated to the controversy of one interview than the whole rest of his career combined.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.56.19 (talk • contribs)

If it's more notable than the rest of his life, why not? Anyway, it will be trimmed down after the situation settles down.--Svetovid 12:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not more notable, it's a single event a single show in a very long career, it shouldn't be mentioned except in perhaps a few sentences. The weight it is given is clearly an attempt to use Dr. Gupta's biography to pimp out a political agenda. But nobody ever said Wikipedia was encyclopedic did they?--Rotten 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because it is a 'single event' doesn't make it 'not more notable'. The 9/11 attacks were 'a single event' in the long history of the Twin Towers, but their collapse was arguably 'more notable' than the rest of their history. Similarly the collapse of any facade of credibility for Dr. Gupta is more notable than his lackluster 'career'. Dlabtot 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moore "Sicko" and unbalanced tag

There's a great CNN rebuttal to Moore's rebuttal (a re-rebuttal?). Anyway, later when I get motivated I'm going to include it on a point by point basis as is done for Moore's rebuttal for balance.--Rotten 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And until that is done, this section is entirely unbalanced. Right now, it consists of an introductory paragraph, six paragraphs of Moore's POV, four paragraphs from third parties attacking Gupta, and a generic paragraph of CNN's response. In fact, dozens of other people have criticized Moore for inaccuracy, Gupta is hardly alone. The entire section violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. THF 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong disagree. As noted above by Nbauman, it's much easier to find sourced 3rd party commentary and analysis from prominent organizations and people that conclude that Moore was correct. As the NPOV policy you linked to says, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." It is apparently the majority view that Gupta was in the wrong. If you have a list of dozens of prominent & relevant sources that criticize Moore in the context of the Sanjay Gupta/CNN controversy, that would be appropriate to add, but stating that they exist in the talk page and not adding them doesn't mean the article is POV. There is no sentence that makes a statement about reality that is contested that would make it POV. Quoting people that make a stance on the controversy, and the fact that the majority of them criticize the Gupta/CNN coverage, is not POV, it's reality. 198.112.236.6 13:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The length of the controversy (with MM) section is clearly too long as compared to the rest of the article. This article is a biography of Gupta; making ~half the article about one particular controversy violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. R. Baley 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree! I'm the editor who started the whole Michael Moore controversy section on the Gupta page. At this point, I feel strongly that it has outgrown the Gupta bio to an almost absurd extent. I was shocked when looked at how big this section has become. Word for word, the article now gives the appearance that Gupta's life has been defined by the Moore incident. There is an imbalance, alright, but it's more in the importance given to the incident than in a political bias. Anyway, just my 2 cents. I respect all the terrific discussion and interesting information. I just wonder whether much of this would be better placed in the Moore article rather than Gupta's (unless I'm missing something here?). Wbroun 18:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've parred it down. I'd like to recommend that certain nutcase editors should refrain from editing this section to flog their political agenda. --Rotten 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The section is much more appropriate at this point in terms of the size of the article. I wouldn't mind seeing a ref to MM's site concerning the rebuttal, as well as a short sentence along the lines of CNN responded to MM's rebuttal with one of their own (with reference). But other than that I think we should keep this section short and to the point. R. Baley 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have added two citations to the paragraph linking (in the ref section) MM's rebuttal and CNN's re-rebuttal. While I like the overall size of this section now, it is slightly one-sided. I want to add the overall point (1 sentence) that Gupta made, something along the lines of "MM could have made the same good points, but without fudging the facts", or Gupta believes that 'Sicko' fudged the facts, when it didn't need to, in order to make good points about health care in the United States." I think this would give the paragraph a little more balance (NPOV) and in the end make it easier to protect against an out of proportion, explosion of info on this biographical page. R. Baley 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to mention Gupta's assertion that 'Sicko fudged the facts,' it may be worthwhile, in order to preserve a neutral POV, that in response to Moore, CNN had to issue two corrections, one official (re: the $251 Cuba stat) and one unofficial (re: the Expert that was trotted out that worked for GOP think tanks). You might also wish to insert that in the CNN reply, the author changed the main central premise of Gupta's argument - i.e. Gupta claimed that 'Moore fudged facts,' but in the CNN rebuttal, it claims that Moore 'fudged points.' Points and facts are two different things. - [eriel.]
Thanks for the reply. You bring up a good point. My main concern is that in writing the nuance you describe, we end up with another out of proportion (to Gupta's bio) controversy section (esp. as various editors write points and counterpoints to help the right side 'win'). Basically, to keep it short, I'm thinking 1 argument (or point) for Gupta and 1 arg. for Moore, with links to appropriate articles and in the refs section. This keeps the article under control but still provides guidance for the reader to find out the underlying details. R. Baley 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFC

I came across the request for comment here and looked over the article at its current revision. As the controversy section is now written, I don't see any issues with NPOV. I don't see that it's inclusion or size is an NPOV issue, either. That said, though, it does simply seem over-large compared to the rest of the article as a whole. I don't know that it should get its own section, but it seems to me like it should get mention in his history. Will this controversy define Gupta for the rest of all time? Seems unlikely, he's a pretty ubiquitous media figure and Wikipedia is not news. Douglasmtaylor 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've examined the article and don't see any POV problems. There was a prominent and widely reported controversy between Gupta and Moore and it is noted in the article. Badagnani 03:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I disagree with the notion kicked around on this page that just because an article is underdeveloped, that current events surrounding a person should be underdeveloped. That may or may not be the case here, but as a principle, the most notable and newsworthy aspects of a person are the things that will be most full-bodied. Saying that a flaccid article calls for a flaccid section about a current news-making event (instead of saying "The MM section is really large, we need to build up the rest of the article...") is myopic. --David Shankbone 03:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - David Shankbone hit the nail on the head. The problem here isn't that this (notable) incident needs shortening, it's that the rest of Dr. Gupta's article needs expanding. Italiavivi 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and admittedly looked up Gupta after all the press attention. I have always liked him, and continue to do so. This entry about the Moore controversy seems strange to me, and very mcuh seems like the editors have the let their political bias enter into the equation. Given that new controversies are being added -- for the first time ever -- i wonder if this is a wikipedia hit job. Also, if the story about asian IQ that Gupta reported is considered controversial, then should any story done by a reporter that sparks controversy have its own wikipedia subsection? Seems overdone. To simply write "viewers" were concerned -- who are these viewers? Why not instead target the drafters of the original study as opposed to the reporter? Also, Gupta's biggest controversy ever was about operating in Iraq, while serving as a journalist. To me, that was really far more significant. I suggest eliminating the Asian IQ and Gardasil sections and adding one about the battlefiled operation. Should i proceed or how does this work? Carlstar3 14:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am leaving a note here again regarding what appears to be a bias on this page. One specific editor insists on inserting unsupported claims in the section on michael moore. I have tried correcting and explaining only to have my comments conistently deleted. Gupta and CNN admitted to making a mistake, which was corrected. Ripe insists there was a second mistake. I have looked through the statements and see no evidence of that. Also, Moore did call a truce, yet Ripe keeps deleting that as well. Editors, please advise. Carlstar3 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC close

Is the RFC issue now resolved? Can the RFC be closed? Eiler7 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

There appears to be some controversy over the section restored in this diff, if I am reading it correctly, a dispute between two editors which has been going on for some days. Rather than have the edit war continue, it would make sense to discuss why such changes are being made on this talk page. Note that I have no opinion either way on the veracity or otherwise of the content, but it does seem verified so removal without discussion (say per BLP) does not seem appropriate. Orderinchaos 18:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Carlstar3's 19:11 comment above in the RFC section, I've provided 3 sources (1: "The second mistake came not in Gupta’s original report – where Keckley was correctly identified as representing Deloitte – but in an on-air debate where Gupta claimed Keckley was working for Vanderbilt University.", 2: "Another CNN correction followed on July 15 concerning the credentials of "Sicko" healthcare expert Paul Keckley.", 3: "CNN's Gupta falsely claimed his source's "only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University"")that call the mistake by Gupta during the King interview a second error, so it's not an "unsupported claim." For those unfamiliar with the details, Moore challenged Gupta during the King interview that one of Gupta's experts worked for a partisan health care think tank. Gupta responded that "His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael." (transcript). As CNN said in their response here, point #11, "Moore is correct." It's Carlstar3's position that is unsupported. Ripe 20:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is increasingly clear that Rip is using this page as an opportunity to pursue an agenda. The statement did acknowledge that "moore is correct" and that "gupta was correct". The specific transcript from cnn.com says the following. "He is with a think tank michael and his only affiliation is with vanderbilt university." While he left vanderbilt from a full time position, he still has an affiliation. There was NO second mistake. Furthermore, why does Ripe insist on deleting the section about Michael Moore calling a truce? He did call a truce and backed off all his attacks. Ripe insists on making this Sanjay Gupta section both inaccurate and biased. Sanjay Gupta is a practicing physician at an indigent care hospital and advised the Clinton administration on health care. We should acknowledge these things instead in teh sake of completeness instead of letting Ripe interpret these two men's lives. Carlstar3 16:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC) CarlStar3

I'm sorry I didn't weigh in on this when I looked at the first deletion of the CNN transcript and noticed that the text "He is with a think tank michael and his only affiliation is with vanderbilt university" opened the possibility that Gupta had been merely incoherent rather than committing the actual error of "mistakenly contesting Moore's observation that Gupta's one on-air expert was now associated with a Republican-linked think tank rather than a university". This wasn't what I had remembered, so I looked at the Media Matters article and noticed that there the transcript reads "MOORE: He's with a think tank -- GUPTA: You know, his only affiliation -- ..." I haven't checked the video at the MM cite, but if MM's transcript is correct I hope we can agree that Carlstar3 was misled by the CNN transcript's mistke and Gupta did indeed make the second error. Andyvphil (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for analysts observing the situation (such as my first source cited above, an AP television reporter) or is that your own interpretation that there was no second error? See Wikipedia:No_original_research. Just because he is a practicing physician at an indigent care hospital and advised the Clinton administration on health care doesn't mean he didn't make a second error. Ripe 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the essay WP:NOTOR and consider the comment in "Caveats about expert material" (which this is not, but I think the thinking has wider application) that "We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. <paragraph break> This may include indicating when a given authority may be wrong..." If Gupta had actually said "He's with a think tank..." then CNN would have been wrong to conceed that he'd made an error when he'd merely been incoherent. Don't let WP:NOTOR lead you into repeating obvious falsehood without demur. WP:IAR exceptions are rare, but I assert that this is one. Andyvphil (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When CNN or Gupta make an error, they acknowledge it by saying "we made an error," as they did with the per capita Cuba spending. There was no second mistake. Please tell me why you keep removing the section about Michael Moore calling a truce? Are you too ashamed of your guy Michael Moore backing off?Carlstar3 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) CarlStar3

Please no personal attacks. Also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research and WP:CIVIL. I'm not going to respond further to you until you adhere to these policies. Ripe 02:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Carlstar3's edits

Firstly, allow me to say I have no opinion on the sentence itself. I have no idea who Sanjay Gupta is, I am not American, and I don't have any opinion on the transcripts or anything like that.
With that said, I have been reverting Carlstar3's edits (here, here and here), as those edits are not improving the article. Indeed, they are worsening it. So when Carlstar3 cited ignore all rules here, I felt I had to interject. Here are the objections I have to the addition.

  1. The edit introduces unencyclopedic language: "To be clear, Gupta's exact quote was". It is an encyclopedia's role to be clear at all times to the reader. No encyclopedia will ever have an article that follows up an explanation with "To be clear, X". It is language used in conversations, instructions, or blog entries, but not encyclopedias. This, therefore, worsens the article.
  2. If you scroll down on any of these edits to the section that has been edited, you will see that the edit separates three citations from the material they are being used to cite. This either gives the impression that they are citations for nothing, or that they are citations for the line being added by Carlstar3. This, again, worsens the article.
  3. [1] (which is provided as a plaintext "cnn.com/transcripts/larrykinglive", rather than any clickable link, or better yet, a citation), doesn't even work. It comes up with a page not found error, and therefore cannot be used.

These are the reasons I have reverted yet again, and the reasons why WP:IAR does not apply. Please discuss here in future, Carlstar3, as you have been told to do in the past, or else, as User:Orderinchaos suggests, you may end up being blocked. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you dreaded walrus for your note and I appreciate your civility. I was not that familiar with Sanjay Gupta until I watched the segment being discussed. As I watched this wikipedia entry grow, I was startled at its bias. So, I created an account and weighed in. At issue is whether Gupta made a second error. He did admit to the error about Cuba per capita spending as noted. In the citation from CNN Ripe has provided, it merely says Moore was also correct. That is, of course, different from Gupta being in error. The citation of the actual transcript http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/10/lkl.01.html, is very specific in what Gupta said. He conceded that the expert was with a think tank and that he had an affiliation with Vanderbilt University. There was not a mistake. You are correct in that my language of "to be clear" throws the rest of the entry into scrutiny and that should be struck. I think Gupta's exact words should be a part of this entry for accuracy sake. I also think the fact that Michael Moore called a "truce" should be included, if for no other reason, than to bring this matter to a close. Carlstar3 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, dreaded walrus, can you please make the changes? I am not facile enough to add the citations. Carlstar3 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia then you need to educate yourself on how to edit Wikipedia, including thoroughly reading the policies I pointed you to above as well as Wikipedia:Consensus. When you've done that you can read Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page. The incorrect citation format is not the only problem with your edits and I and others will continue reverting the edit you're pushing because you're synthesizing your own conclusion from the transcript, whereas the 3 citations that you keep deleting have written their own analysis on the specific event. Ripe (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And, I will continue to undo your biased edits. This is the exact language per the transcript. Carlstar3 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Carlstar3's edit

Carlstar3 keeps submitting variations on a particular edit that removes sourced information & the associated version of events and replaces them with an unsourced less negative interpretation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 , while several editors including myself, Andyvphil, and Orderinchaos have been reverting his edits. He recently expressed above his intention to continue submitting his edit. I intend to continue reverting it because it deletes sourced 3rd party media commentators' interpretations of the events, whereas Carlstar3's edit pushes his own interpretation of the events and therefore I believe it is OR/POV. I would like to establish consensus on a version or suggested alternative. Ripe (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RfD response:Carlstar3 is definitely out of line. One or two of such incidents can happen when multiple editors are working on an article, but the volume of incidents suggests that Carlstar3 is either working with a bias or not respecting consensus. He should probably be warned and encouraged to work with other editors. Removing referenced info and replacing it with OR interp is unacceptable. I am not familiar with the issues covered in teh article, but at the very least, if Carlstar3 is familiar with an opinion not being represented in the article, he/she should include that in addition to the information already present and cite references, which I hadn't seen done. If Gupta did say that the rep was in a think tank, that could be integrated into the report on the controvery. But the controversy should not be eliminated. Just as a side point, the article could probably do with some copyediting in reporting these events, but that is a secondary issue.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As with yourself, I am also unfamiliar with the subject of the article, though I thought I would mention that he has been warned, and encouraged to discuss on the talk page: see the section "Ripe's clear cut bias and inaccurate editing", on his talk page , where User:Orderinchaos says "Unless you discuss the edits you want made on the article talk page and reach a consensus with other users, and especially if you continue to edit-war on this article, you will be blocked from editing". He clearly has not followed these instructions. Dreaded Walrus t c 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parents/Indian heritage

What part(s) of India do his parents come from and were they born in India? Badagnani (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)