Talk:Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

A request to DAulakh

Hi Daulakh... I have provided enough evidences with all the text which I have added, If you have any doubts on Amnesty International's Reports or on rest of the references then please talk, but please do not suppress the truth. Please go through the provided references first. I have not deleted any of the information, I have simply added more alongwith references. This is Wikipedia and I beleive that I have the same rights as you. So with due respect, it is my humble request that please do not delete the information which I have added recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh6 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thetruth's contribution

I have reverted your changes to a POV version. Please read your talk page. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 17:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV version is from a BBC profile. I'm leaving it here until I can work out a version that's not directly from the article.

KPS Gill's Counter-Terrorism Techniques in Punjab

There were serious charges levelled against him and his police by human rights activists that thousands of suspects were killed in staged shootouts and thousands of bodies were cremated/disposed without proper identification or post-mortem. . Police under his commnad used in-human torture techniques to extract information from Sikh Militants and in their killings, Gurdev Singh 'Debu' an area commander of Khalistan Commando Force, was boiled alive by his police. Even Khushwant Singh is said to have gone volte-face after reading the research Reduced to Ashes Book by a human rights group and remarked "It is spine-chilling.... Well, Mr Gill, it is not rubbish; you and the Punjab police have quite a few awkward questions to answer".

Several number of Sikh women - teenage girls, young and old women, were also gangraped and molested by Indian security forces during house to house searches. Looting of the villagers’ property and ransacking of the entire villages also happened during his reign.

I have added Amnesty International Report as a reference> (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/002/2003/en/uvSEW2lMY-gJ)

References

Accusations of Sexual Misconduct and Human Rights Abuses

Surely there needs to be some discussion on the widely discussed issue of Gill's involvement in human rigts abuses in the Punjab. Note that Amnesty Interbational have labelled him the 'butcher of Punjab' and many sikhs regard him as a traitor.

There also needs to be a dit on Gill's conviction for sexual harrashment.

This whole article is very misleading!!

MSprealMF 2111hrs 28/06/07

In substantiation of this, please read https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-38498448. The complainant was a very senior civil servant, a fact whose ommission indicates a non-NPOV report. It's sexually biased: her complaint was found justified at the highest level, the Supreme Court, but the tenor of the text suggests it was negligable. The distinction is that this was a very senior police commander, who should have set an immaculate example to his subordinates: the example he actually set continued a culture of oppression.

Reverted

• Reverted [1] - also violated policies as enshrined in biography of living people. --Bhadani (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue tags

The article has a {{Cherry-picking}} tag but no explanation of the issue. I am going to remove the tag as the editor Satanoid is not explaining why s/he feels that. Seeing Satanoid's history, I'm not too excited that s/he will explain the tagging. Nevetheless, I'll be fine if the editor comes back and explains - we can discuss. However, I'll let the POV tag intact because I feel there are certain issues which needs fixing before that tag can be removed. Can someone explain the POV part as well. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Became involved"? or "was given the post of"?

"Gill became involved in sports administration after retirement from police work and was the President of the Indian Hockey Federation" --> This is not correct language (I think) it needs fixing because currently it reflects to the reader that the subject "became involved" voluntarily or so. Perhaps we should work on finding the facts around this, or fix the language to not give such impression. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP flags

The edit war over this seems to have died, but the article is littered with editwar debris and unsourced or poorly sourced content, some of it rather rude, some of it rather too glowing. I killed a couple of bits but not going to spend a lot of time on it. Hopefully someone who knows more will apply the editorial hatchet to the bits that need to go.- sinneed (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Accusations... in lead

Doesn't belong in a wp:BLP at all. REALLY doesn't belong in the wp:lead of a BLP. - sinneed (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I won't kill this again, wp:lead, but I think that it doesn't belong in the lead, and that it doesn't belong per wp:BLP. Maybe an article about the Punjab police actions in that time period.- sinneed (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It don't feel terribly strongly about this, and an anon editor does. Flagged.- sinneed (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He was DGP not officer

Question:

A lot of 'experts' on KPS Gill have given their bit or psedo-history (POV) on various allegations and his involvement in National Sports events etc. He was also in the business of Indian National Security, thwarting terrorism and most importantly these 'experts' such as Sinneed and Roadahead don't mention anything about his role in the Gujarat Police ? You got anything against mentioning anything on that Sinneed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources say he was an officer. Please take your dispute to them, not to Wikipedia. If you find a source that says he was never an officer, we can use it for wp:BALANCE.

Not at all. That would belong in the body. I have not gotten that far due to steady wp:vandalism.

"these 'experts' such as Sinneed" - No one has stated that I am an expert.- sinneed (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Former DGP

Former is used due to copyright violations, enjoy Morbid Fairy (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He is retired. No one can copyright the fact that he is retired. It doesn't even need a quote.

He was a police officers... he eventually became the DG. - sinneed (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Scandal at IHF

Clearly, there are conflicting reports in the press. The bare statements in the lead are misleading, and I am removing them formally. If they are restored, I will flag them and alert the BLP noticeboard. I will not remove them again.- sinneed (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a BLP.

The wild statements attributed to nameless organizations cannot. Please provide quotes, from sources, cited, meeting wp:RS. If you just can't, please provide the location in the source you are citing. I don't see it there. It is certainly possible that I missed it, since you are at least paraphrasing and won't be copying.- sinneed (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by name less?.... you can read it properly at www.ensaaf.org, there is one more source, i.e. Human Rights Watch, please extract information from it as well.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To expand a bit. I see this content as weakly sourced, the sole document being a plea made to a court to consider investigating, and arguing why the investigation should take place. It argues that Gill should have stopped the men. It argues that he caused them to do these things by creating an environment tolerant of abuse. Phrased that way, it *MIGHT* make it, but anyone who disagreed with us could simply kill it, in my opinion.

Reinstating what I see as wild statements of construction in a wp:BLP is exempt from the wp:3RR, and I will kill them steadily. Please consider reworking, and staying to the facts, letting the readers draw their conclusions. *I* have a US NFP... that doesn't make me an wp:RS... that argument is specious. That I accept that ENSAAF won't lie about the facts doesn't mean much of anyone else will... and their conclusions are no better than anyone elses. If you disagree that this fails wp:BLP, the BLP noticeboard might be a place to get someone to decide that. I won't oppose. :)

Namless... not named. Please add the sources, provide quotes or locations. I see you adding wp:OR that I see as libel in a wp:BLP.- sinneed (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Kindly mention something about the available text in world famous international body Human Rights Watch's reference as well, so that readers could help us in the conclusion. You can invite any neutral editors who have knowledge on Sikhism related articles, e.g. Roadahead, Sikhhistory or someone else.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I will invite no one. You may choose to do so. The content you keep adding is wp:OR and must stay out.- sinneed (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the improvemnet in the new text which you have proposed. But I feel that it can be improved a little bit in following terms:

• I had read in some of the sources in this articles that KPS Gill had seen Khalra's tortured body while interrogating him which contradicts with new sentence could reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of his torture.
• Also references indicate that he did not punish the culprits who were working under his direct command.

You might want to read Human Rights Watch reference a bit more. I think it talk about the direct accusations between Khalra and KPS Gill prior to Khalra's abduction. The whole police department of state of Punjab was working under direct command of KPS Gill. Khalra was picked up when he kept challenging KPS Gill for open discussion. This new reference has really good information I blieve.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• "KPS Gill had seen Khalra's tortured body" - If you find a wp:RS that says that, great. You haven't presented one. He was in the room with the man, after he was tortured, and the signs of torture were on his body. The reader is left to decide whether that means he saw the signs... thus the "reasonbly"blah blah blah.- sinneed (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, I will try reading the references in details and will try finding new ones. If time permits, you can also read the provided references a bit more. Thanks. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, probably not. I will count on you to provide the locations of the statements you place in the article, and will fact-check them then. And really, at this point? Quotes, please.- sinneed (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Militancy <> Terrorism

Terrorism <> Militancy in and of itself is not a PoV term. Calling an attack a terrorist act, or a person a terrorist or an organization a terrorist one... those would be PoV in many cases. Clearly there was terrorism in Punjab. Buses and planes bombed, with the target being no one in particular, just whoever showed up at the bus stop during that 10 minutes, is clearly terrorism, I should think... but in this case it is moot.- sinneed (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But you do NOT know who did it... KPS Gill and his government, to change public opinion against Khalistan movement or Khalistani organizations, to change public opinion (which is normally required by rebels to take people alongwith)

against themselves. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this gem. Let me get this straight... you are proposing that the Government of India perpetrated a massive and enourmously successful conspiracy to pretend that there was Sikh Terrorism in Punjab... that it was so good that even today, 25 years on, there is no outcry over their conspiracy... but only that they violated human rights seriously in fighting the terrorism? I think you will find little support for such a position.- sinneed (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

South Asia Terrorism Portal

South Asia Terrorism Portal/Institute for Conflict Management references can NOT be used in Khalistan movement related articles because it is headed by KPS Gill himself, who was a party in the Khalistan movement and who is blamed for mass murders and mass cremations by Human Rights Watch, ENSAAF and other Human Rights Organizations. it violates wp:pov in Sikhism, Khalistan movement etc related articles.

As we can NOT use any Khalistani mouth pieces in these articles, similarly we can NOT use KPS Gill's own mouth piece in them. I will delete all of its references in any Sikhism, Khalistan movement related articles and I will expect all neutral editors to do the same. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Expect all you want. And please discuss each article on its own talk page.- sinneed (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• No worries! as adviced I will duly document its deletion and its being wp:npov in the talk pages of any and all Khalistan movement related articles. I would like to give reasonable time to respected wikipedia editors so that they could find any other wp:rs references (if they want to) before totally deleting the referenced contents. I will expect the same from other respected neutral wiki editors.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly Punjab: The Knights of Falsehood can NOT be used as a reference to support this article or any of Khalistan movement related articles. It is written by him and he was head of one of the sides in the conflict. It is KPS Gill's own book. Violates wp:npov. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Humor. Clearly it can be used to support the fact that he wrote the book. And yes, books by an author about the author's work can be used, but one must work harder to avoid wp:POV traps, see wp:RS#Reliability in specific contexts "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

• For example, if someone wanted to write "KPS Gill was a real hero!" and cited it to his book, that would be an Epic Fail. If, on the other hand, the book gave a date for his marriage, it would generally be OK to use that date... *generally*.- sinneed (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I will definitely take care of these points while deleting its references from Khalistan movement related articles. I will duly document them in the talk pages so that I could give reasonable time to respected wikipedia editors so that they could find any other wp:rs references (if they want to) before totally deleting the referenced contents. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

wp:Talk - talk about the articles on their talk pages, not here. Please don't delete the sources, that is rude. One may much more constructively add CN and Dubious flags.- sinneed (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor objected to ...

"He was appointed as a consultant by the Chhattisgarh government of India to help tackle the Naxalite movement in the state from 2007 to 2008." As this has only a primary source, and seems of secondary importance, I have pulled it here for possible addition.- sinneed (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been obsoleted by more complete information from Wikireader. Thank you WR. :)

Nexalite Movement - Please help

I had to kill a references which unfortunately violates wp:npov. It support following sentence:

He was appointed as a consultant by the Chhattisgarh government of India to help tackle the Naxalite movement in the state from 2007 to 2008.

I will appreciate if any other editors could provide any other NPOV reference to support this text. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• A reference cannot violate wp:NPOV. Only editors can do that. So no, you did not have to do it. You did. I have restored it, as it is a reference. Since you were not challenging the content, your edit makes very little sense. Please review wp:NPOV, wp:RS. You have very clearly not understood. In any event, the problem was terminology. The source was here, I named it and put the ref on the statement. I *DO* challenge the statement, as I think the wording is poor.- sinneed (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

No! as I said before, I do not have any objection to the text but I do have objection to KPS GIll's own mouth piece to support his own acts/promotions/contributions etc etc. I am going to kill this reference for now. If you want, feel free to delete the whole sentence. I will NOT restore it again. He is a party in these cases so he can not become reference as well. This will be my last edit for tonight.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• You need not wp:LIKE the source. wp:BLP might also be a good document to study. WP:SELFPUB links to a copy of the key part. It is a bit of a stretch to claim that a widely-regarded (see me be wrong in the discussion of whether South Asia Terrorism Portal is notably considered to publish expert information on terrorism and counterterrorism at its article, if interested) corporation is a self-published source of its chief executive.

- sinneed (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This source clearly meets the requirements even in wp:BLP for this fact. Please seek support for your position, if you wish. I am confident you will not find it. Sorry. Restoring.- sinneed (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

BBC has clearly mentioned the following:

• He publishes the Faultlines journal and runs the Institute for Conflict Management, as well as advising governments and institutions on security related issues"
• Mr Gill has also written a book, "The Knights of Falsehood", which explores the abuse of religious institutions by the politics of terrorism in Punjab
• He and his team have been accused of committing excesses in the name of stamping out terrorism
• Then in the mid-1990s, a senior female civil servant from Punjab, Rupan Deol Bajaj, sued him successfully for sexual harassment

Hence! considering his reputation, his active involvement as 'a one side/party' in the Khalistan movement and allegation of his committing excesses", his own sources (which he is publishing and running.. per BBC), can be NOT be considered rs to support his own articles or any of Khalistan movement related articles. I do NOT want to give a chance to other editors to start adding Khalistani sources in 'this' and any other Khalistani websites either. This articles must stay neutral wp:npov with references from third part sources.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

he is one of the people involved with ICM. he does not own the site. so it is a RS. SATP is considered a reliable site about info about terrorism and is widely sourced by RS. Khalistani sites especially run by banned terrorist organizations are no comparison to SATP. also remember Gill was a commissioned officer in the police force of the world largest democracy and was never fired from that job. So nice try comparing SATP and khalistani sitesWikireader41 (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he does in some real sense run the site. It also simply doesn't matter. If it said "KPS Gill has rocked the world of the Naxilites, phear him!" then it wouldn't be useful as a source. This is, however, citing his qualifications as head of the organization, which is very much appropriate to his Wikipedia article. I have provided references leading to the related section at wp:BLP. This really isn't complex. The argument against this source used in this way appears Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.- sinneed (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding User talk:Wikireader41's comments, Please note that democracy means the system where majority always rule. Well! if KPS Gill walking free, it is only because this largest democracy of the world, i.e India is protecting him at every single cost. Its security forces can freely abduct and kill human rights activists if they try to persue cases against mass murders and mass cremations of its police (which worked under direct command of KPS Gill). And it can put maximum hurdles in the investigations if its Supreme court directs its own commision to investigate mass murders/disappearances of Punjab And if even lawyers want to persue this largest democracy's mass killings/mass disappearances/mass cremations etc cases then they end up taking protection for their own lives, atleast from the level of Supreme Court. And if they persue cases against police without this protection then they end up being raped/murdered alongwith their infants inside this democracy's police stations. And remember! India's National Human Rights Commission finally decided to give compensation of Rs 100,000 per victim with no admission of wrongdoing or prosecution of officials. Its order concluded "It does not matter whether the custody was lawful or unlawful"
• I did NOT add above mentioned facts into the article. I am struglling to keep it appear neutral wp:npov. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

KPS Gill is not only walking free He is thriving. he was called by Lanka, Gujarat and Chattisgarh to advise on security matters as reported in RS AFTER he killed thousands of innocents in Punjab alongwith a few hundred hardcore militants. I agree his methods may not be ideal and many innocent sikhs became 'collateral damage'. but USA is doing the same now in pakistan with hundreds of innocent muslims dying in drone attacks. sound like a hi tech version of old fashioned encounters by Punjab Police. yes what India and USA did carries a lot more weight than any Khalistani.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

wp:Talk please - focus on the content of the article, not the people, the countries, and political thought.- sinneed (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Before i forget, I would like to thank Wikireader41 for finding and adding neutral reference to save this text.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Murder of Human Rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra

I am questioning the need of this subsection. did KPS Gill murder this person ??? if not then why such a prominent subsection in this article. does not seem NPOV at allWikireader41 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

especially since this is mentioned in the prior section on human rights abuses. and what is ensaaf. is it a reliable source by any stretch of imaginationWikireader41 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for Ensaaf to be a wp:RS. The book is published. Gill visited the person while in custody, "with the marks of torture on his person" according to a deposition. Even an author who considers him a hero objects to this.- sinneed (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, too many sources. The Ensaaf pleadings to the courts would be reliable in that they say what is here. They need not be correct, the court has only ruled that there should be an investigation. Many many pleadings turn out to be incorrect... and may well not belong here.- sinneed (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

i was talking about ensaaf.org. is that a RS. which RS mention it ?? also if we want to keep the section on Jaswant Singh Khalra how about adding a subsection on killing of Talwinder Singh Parmar who was a militant belonging to a designated terrorist organization and was involved in Air India Flight 182 bombing. If Gill is responsible vicariously for Khalra's death surely he should get credit for killing Parmar also ( this happened when KPS was chief) Wikireader41 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Human rights organizations, including ENSAAF, Amnesty, HRW, Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab, CIIP etc are all relaiable per wp:rs. They all are third party sources, which documented the crimes and tried to get justice to the victims through all legal means. They did NOT advocate Khalistan and never hailed Khalistani militant organizations in the whole process--99.51.223.161 (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anon - Actually, HROs are not wp:RS at all times. Many have their own agendas... they are intimately involved as for example thinktanks... otherwise they would not exist. They must be used wisely. IHRO was a Punjab-only HRO, and the RS board declined it (it is defunct now, so the point in its case is moot). There is no blanket RS acceptance just because an organization is (or claims to be) an HRO. wp:Notability is important, for example... and Ensaaf seems weak there...- sinneed (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikireader41 - I would say that, like SATP, it is a useful source within limits. SATP seems to have much more notability (thank you), but that could simply be because no one has expended the effort you did to firm it up... it has no article at all. I am dubious because I see little notability. I am dubious because of its focus on Punjab. As above, there is a history of a Punjab-focus-HRO being too focused on Punjab and failing credibility.- sinneed (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• "If Gill is responsible vicariously" - not vicariously. He was there according to one of his officer's testimony in 2005. Until that bit was well-sourced I was doubtful about the mention here, and especially so MUCH coverage. I am still doubtful about all that volume. I expect that eventually it will need to be cut down to who the man was, what he did to tick off the police, that he died, and that 10 years later an officer testified the Gill was there after the writ of habeous corpus was served, and visited with the man for 30 minutes, the claim about the advice. Court testimony is very strong sourcing. I still want to get the writ into the text.- sinneed (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

anon IP. please do not compare ensaaf.org to amnesty. otherwise we can compare KPS to jesus christ. do any secondary sources mention anything about ensaaf.org. it appears to be a one person show run from somebodies basement to me. any secondary sources talking about ensaaf.org will be welcome Wikireader41 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries! There will be, and we all can find them out. Also, please take a look at my last reply under section Nexalite Movement - Please help. I hope that my reply duly addresses some of the confusions about this notability.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed recently - so that makes 3 logged-in editors opposed, and 1 anon supporting. Unless something changes, clearly for the moment Ensaaf.org does not have wp:consensus as a wp:RS. The RS discussion board would be a good place to gather support.- sinneed (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• To clarify... I do not oppose using Ensaaf.org in footnotes under all circumstances... but simply that it lacks the notability of, say, Amnesty International.- sinneed (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This murder has its own article, which is rather poor. I propose to move most of this content to his article, murder section, and leave what is here focused on the involvement of the subject person.- sinneed (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. this is a BLP. remember he is innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. this is very contentious info which needs to be removed asap. right now to a casual reader it might appear thet KPS killed this guy personally.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where information is perserved based on available secondary references. It is not an Indian judicial court. There are several countries in the world which kill their opponents and let their own criminals walk scot free. {You have also accepted in the discussions (in this talk page) that he killed thousands of innocents}. Your insistence of removing all anti-KPS Gill information simply show your own POV and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.84 (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is very crucial for this article, it links "KPS Gill (subject) with his directly controlled law breaking police" + "KPS Gill's illegal practices/violations of law of the land" with "an innocent world famous human rights activist's beating, torture and cold blood murder". --99.51.223.161 (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

it is interesting anon IPs are both based in Texas. maybe I should start calling my buddies too. even if we assume that he had some responsibility in Khalras murder. what about the responsibility of others. eg Prime Minister of India who could have dismissed him, Bill Clinton (as the leader of free world he could have bombed or coerced India), Khalras neighbours who could have stormed the place where Khalra was held and freed him. why are you guys making Gill the scapegoat as if he was the the only person responsible??? any reference to website ensaaaf.org needs to go. it seems to be run for a single purpose and pushes an agenda which is clearly not NPOV. SATP on other hand focusses on all terrorism in the subcontinent and also has Ajai Sahni who is an expert in his own right and had nothing to do with panjab insurgency. we need to stick to RS. plenty of info on Gill in mainstream media that we do not have to rely on dubious sources. and yes positive and any negative info needs to be given due weight as presented in RSWikireader41 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wikireader41, I am from state of California and also appose your pov pushing in the article. Now are you going to say that all editors from USA are friends of each other. Please stop attacking editors. --166.129.123.49 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

when Indian officers are themselves saying that``Whatever was done in Punjab to stamp out militancy was done with the full knowledge and approval -- it may not have been vocal but was certainly tacit -- of everyone from the Prime Minister downward. and rest of India knew about it. So when prime minister was himself involved in mass murders committed under KPS Gill's command then who would fire him. STOP this ruthless POV pushing.--166.129.123.49 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• wp:talk - STOP IT. Focus on the article, not one another.

• This needs to be covered in Khalra's article, and it is not. What is here should be the Gill-related bits of that article. The lack of interest in the Khalra article makes it hard to wp:AGF and makes this look like a wp:POV Push- sinneed (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• See here, it proves wikireader41's wp:pov history and resulted blocking. I agree with several other editors that he is pushing hisPOV here. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• That was a needless unpleasantness. Remarks like this break wp:talk, and make it harder to reach wp:consensus.- sinneed (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Faultlines - does it exist apart from the web site?

I see a 1999 collection of work into a book, but is this an electronic-only thing? If so, does it have an existence outside the web site? Does it deserve a separate mention at all?

At the moment, I think it does rate a mention, I see a number of academic citations and press references. I do think it is essentially part of the web site... but in this age of emedia I am not sure that matters.- sinneed (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

it doesnt matter. remember wikipedia. it does not exist on paper;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not related to Wikipedia. It is related to reality. If this is electronic-only, and it is "published" by putting it on SATP.org... then it has no separate existence... I see it as part of SATP, and claiming it is a quarterly journal is specious, misleading the reader.- sinneed (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

same would apply to wikipedia signpost. i dont think that is published on paper.Wikireader41 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, it would. I fear I miss your point.- sinneed (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Prosecution of police for HR violations during the Punjab insurgency

There is an entire article on the HR in Punjab, with the laws and immunity already discussed. It is clear to me that this does not belong here. Does it belong there? This is a wp:BLP. There are specific calls for prosecution of Gill, and those *MIGHT* go here if they are adequately noted and meet wp:BLP in all other ways.- sinneed (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

i could not agree more Wikireader41 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

why "Might"?. one editor wikireaded41 believe that KPS Gill's achievements should be documented in as much detail as possible and rest everything must be killed OR moved. waooo ..... what a view.... 'You can not expect more'... 'this is all what you want mannn'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.84 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Might belong because they might fit within the wp:BLP.- sinneed (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that following should be part of it: ..related to Gill, where-ever his name/his opinion/his acts was/were quoted/called/used/praised/supported by himself and/or others. Allegations against him and/or his allegations against others, if he ever tried to protect/support police officials being persecuted in court cases. If his juniors or fellow officers tried to protect the police officials allegedly involved in human rights violations related court cases where committed crimes reasonably fell under his rule. If state/governments accepted what he asked, within a reasonable time period/if there is an indication that commited crimes were sanctioned/supported by his high ups as well (because, in this case it will relieve him for some of his excesses) and we can discuss other sources/text on case by case basis.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

yes I believe his contibutions need to be mentioned in DETAIL. He is a senior police officer who smashed khalistanis . he smashed violence in Gujarat. he is sought after for an expertise in counterterrorism. I challenge any editor to point out the name of a policeman from any country who has been asked to advise in multiple countries and by multiple governments ( inspite of his outspoken criticism of the Indian government). any allegations against him are just that. This article in the current form is totally topsy turvy. It was deliberately written by cherry picking negative things about him. it is a negatively written article pushing POV of his enemies ( Babbar Khalsa etc ) etc. most people in Punjab ( forget about rest of India) think of him as a hero. The whole section on Khalras murder soes NOT belong here. maybe half a sentence would be OK. undue weight violates NPOVWikireader41 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your work. I disagree strongly about Khalra's murder subsection (not section, that was my mistake, and I fixed it). - sinneed (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of HR violations in Punjab

Beyond the 2 points already discussed, this needs to be sharply focused on Gill... this is a wp:BLP, and everything mentioned must tie to him, and do so in a way that does not libel him and also does not violate wp:BLP.- sinneed (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

could not agree more Wikireader41 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While referring to KPS Gill's letter to Prime minister of India, Julio Ribeiro mentioned that in many cases the security forces committed excesses and it was requested from the state to defend the involved police officers strongly<ref>[http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19970618/16950043.html The Indian Express, June 18, 1997]</ref>. The following day, a minister in state of Punjab declared that the state government will defend all police officers who had to committ mistakes while fighting against the separatists<ref>[http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19970619/17050343.html The Indian Express June 19, 1997]</ref>.

Prakash Singh, an Inspecter General ranked police officer, while supporting KPS Gill's views to support the police officers which were being victimised because of human rights issues, has mentioned that 'whatever was carried out in Punjab to eliminate militancy was done under the complete knowledge and tacit approval of government officials upto the level of Prime Minister and rest of India knew about it. Another Punjab police chief P C Dogra, while referring to 2500 writ petitions filed against state police until then, had mentioned that Punjab Police was asking for a legislation since year 1993 to protect all the police officers who fought against militants<ref>[http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19970526/14650203.html The Indian Express, May 26, 1997]</ref>

This is way too much unfocused and negatively worded content for a wp:BLP. wp:BRD... it was Boldly added, and is now Reverted. Let us discuss why this belongs in an article about a living person. It does seem appropriate, for the article about HR in Punjab.- sinneed (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It clearly talk about KPS Gill and other's opinion about him and/or his work.... And it is duly referenced. How can we selectively choose certain references which praise him or.. are mildly criticizing him. It will violate wp:pov--166.129.123.49 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anon - no it does not clearly do anything. Sorry.- sinneed (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No! It does clearly focus on KPS Gill and his acts.

• It does show that he had written a letter to prime minister of India BECAUSE he was not happy when his favourite police offiver Ajit Singh sandhu's did suicide, once he (Sandhu) found himself trapped in hundereds of excesses related to the court cases. It also show that a demand was being made to protect the officers who were being victimized because of Human Rights abuses (for example Ajit Singh Sandhu, who acted under KPS Gill's direct command)
• 2nd paragraph even show that he was tacity being supported by people upto the level of Prime Minister of India and rest of India (means majority - means the non-Khalistanis) knew about how Khalistan movement was being crushed. It is a sad and very strong evidence/reference. I strongly favour its addition back to the article.
• Support - If some one has any objections to any of its referenced contents then he must indicate them one by one over here so that editors could review them, otherwise I will add them back by tomorrow noon.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't show anything clearly.
• 2nd para is misleading then. The support was coded into law, just for Punjab, and is covered (badly) in an article.
• This line was edited by an anon editor. Beware, these may not be my remarks."then he must indicate them one by one" - Actually no. The content can be added if we gain consensus that it belongs here.
  Normally, if no one objects, content is added on a consensus of one.
  This chunk of text doesn't have a clear purpose or a clear relation to gill. We could write "Gill was upset about the suicide of one of his men and wrote a letter protesting all the HR Violation charges." But why? The charges are notable... the volume of them is notable. The letter? No. The suicide? On his article.
  We very clearly do not have consensus at this time to add this content.- sinneed (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• The wp:burden is on the editor wanting to add content.- sinneed (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The lack of work on the Human rights in Punjab, India article makes it difficult to wp:Assume good faith. It makes the focus on this article seem to be Gill, rather than the HR violations themselves. We should be able to pull the Gill-related bits out of the HR article, possibly expanding on them if Gill's role were not significant there, if needed. But we can't, because the content isn't there. This makes the focus on Gill appear to be a wp:POV push.- sinneed (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I support adding the 2nd paragraph. Comments are from notable personalities/officials of India.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Insurgency in Punjab

would propose a section on punjab insurgency with a brief backgrounder for the new reader and a link to main article. His role in defeating it needs to be discussed in detail since that was his main achievement. the widespread violations of Human rights during that era needs to be given due weight & have a subsection within this section with allegations about his involvement in death of Khalra as reported in RS mentioned in there.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But this is covered in 1gazillion articles already, and each one is conflict-ridden.- sinneed (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International Report

interesting that this report on Khalra has NO mention of KPS Gill.[2]Wikireader41 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it interesting? Should they include the full text of each in every future report?- sinneed (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What? You posted a report from 1998 and lament the fact that it doesn't include the 2005 testimony?- sinneed (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

the 2005 testimony was that somebody had seen Gill visit Khalra a few days prior to Khalra's death. maybe he went there to order Khalra's release?? too much weight is being given to one persons testimony. Khalra murder case has been decided and KPS was not convicted. so having a separate section on this murder violates WP:DUEWikireader41 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Then he certainly should have done so. He could have taken the man to a hospital right then, if he was there. He was the DGP. He had loyal men and a car. He could have saved him on the spot. 1 witness testified in court. 1 is all it takes. wp:BALANCE - finding a source that says Gill was never there would be useful, perhaps an interested editor will do so.- sinneed (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

also the 1998 report was prepared full 3 years after the murder. so they had ample time to research this. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• If witnesses are unwilling to speak, as the witness stated in this case, no they did not. And it doesn't matter. Court testimony. Very much wp:RS. Yes, witnesses lie. Thus, we listen to both sides. An interested editor may find another side.- sinneed (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

• Good Point. --166.129.123.49 (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sikhwiki article

this looks much more NPOV to me. its a shame they are exceeding WP standards now[3] Wikireader41 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a needless unpleasantness. Remarks like this break wp:talk, and make it harder to reach wp:consensus. At the moment, at least 3 editors are trying to make this article better.- sinneed (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

it was not my intention to be unpleasant. I was merely pointing out that sikhwiki article appeared more NPOV inspite of being written with a Sikh POV. Cheers Wikireader41 (talk)

So you believe that whatever editors have written about KPS Gill on sikhiwiki is Sikh POV. Stop targetting a whole religion with your POV pushing. --166.129.123.49 (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both of you please stop now. See wp:talk.- sinneed (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

wp:Lead. I struggle with starting off with his retirement, but the lead will bloat if we put all the complexity of his serving as DGP twice, etc.

The 1st sentence needs to explain his main notability, which seems to be clearly related to crushing the Punjab insurgency in the 80s and 90s as DGP.- sinneed (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the 1st sentence necessarily has to establish notability. the lede itself should be a concise overview of the article and should establish notability in a few sentences Wikireader41 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All the rules in Wikipedia can be broken if needed. I don't see the need here. I am interested to hear the argument that the 1st sentence needs to be about his retirement.- sinneed (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources,..."
• "...and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead."

As always, WP rules are for breaking if needed... but ... what is the need?- sinneed (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am NOT comfortable with the lead section as it has been constructed. I believe his human rights violations should also figure in the first sentence OR we should come to a wp:consensus where all his posite and negative points should appear in a balanced way.
• Why his being drunk section has been deleted. When his patting of senior admn female officer's posterior has been considered as a "Sexual harassment" then why these "Sexual harassment conviction" words were removed from lead section. I have re-entered them (also it matches with the related subsection). Details of this sexual harassment conviction are already there in the subsection.
• The whole article shows that he is a controversial figure. Hence! It should come as the very first sentence. You can put it in any neutral way. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• He is not most notable for the controversy. He is most notable for Punjab. wp:lead. This really isn't complicated.- sinneed (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, so you want the fact that he was drunk (alleged) IN the lead, but you want what he did OUT of lead. Interesting. His conviction remains in the lead. It says "convicted". Actually it said "found guilty". Fixed. If you read the source carefully, you may be able to find that sexual harassment wasn't the charge. There were 2 charges. Perhaps you may want to add them to the body. I feel confident you won't find support for putting them in the lead. But I could be wrong.- sinneed (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• 'Alleged drunk' part - It should not be there in the lead section, it should stay in its own section only. So I support this editor on it.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• I share editor Sinneed's point that he is most notable for Punjab (both positive and negative acts). hence 1st sentence --144.160.130.16 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• After Punjab, he is notable for his massive human rights violations. (I see that some editor has already moved his human rights violations part on # 2nd). I support it. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rest look Ok for now.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of human rights violations during Punjab insurgency

right now this section is bigger than the entire section on his IPS career ?? appears as though The HR violations are his main claim to fame. we need to a) expand the section dealing with his role in fighting the separatists in Panjab b) pare down the section on HR violations to a more reasonable size Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the section on HR abuses be limited in size to about 1/2 that of the section detailing his 30 odd years of IPS service.Wikireader41 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its another POV pushing by wikireader41.--166.129.123.49 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anon - Please wp:AGF. I don't agree with Wikireader41. This means only that, and nothing more.

Also, it appears that your POV pushing is that strong that you want to contradict your own saying that he killed thousands of innocents in Punjab. You believe him to be a hero and you want to suppress rest everything which show any details of his crimes.--166.129.123.49 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anon - I see no evidence of that. Please wp:AGF.- sinneed (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wiki-I oppose blanket size limitation, in the strongest terms. If the content is not valuable, it should not be there. I would be happy to see the article grow wisely.- sinneed (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Confused press mess

At that time, KPS Gill had been the head of the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) roughly for 15 years. Press variously reported that Gill was "...sacked..."<ref name="exprsacked"/> or stated that the IOA was "...removing him by suspending the IHF..."<ref name="exprsacked"/> or stated "While Gill wasn’t specifically ‘sacked’..."<ref name=IHFsuspended2 /> In any event, KPS Gill was reportedly to lead the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) in June 2009 meetings with the new [[Hockey India]] organization.<ref name="GillCoop"/>

Clearly, since the IHF was not under the control of the IOA, the IOA could not fire anyone there. As of last month, Gill was still in charge of the IHF, which still exists. It simply doesn't provide an Olympic team for India anymore.- sinneed (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Erk. I lost a chunk of text. I am copying this here to gain consensus for its inclusion. wp:BRD... it was boldly added, after much review and research I have deleted it, and now we should reach wp:consensus on whether it belongs. It is damaging to Gill, it is poorly sourced (that is, the sources clearly conflict).

• I oppose its inclusion strongly. If it is readded without gaining consensus, I will kill it immediatly and warn the adding editor. If it is added more than once I will continue to kill it as wp:3RR does not apply and continue warning.- sinneed (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sineed, this reference seems interesting, it might shed some light to solve this IHF puzzle.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• There is no puzzle. The press got excited and confused itself.- sinneed (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If we need any more coverage of this, then this may be worth considering:
On June 15, 2009, the IHF met with the new Hockey India organization and established a team to work out a merger of the 2 organizations within 45 days. Gill, head of the IHF, stated that he will not be a candidate for the leading position of the new organization.

I have no opinion, but the sources were there so I drafted something up.- sinneed (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sinneed, This IHF episode still look a little puzzle to me. I would like to do some further research on it and we will document it properly so that we could avoid any edit wars between any editors in the future as well.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars are very very easy to avoid. Don't do it, and it never happens. Simple. :) There is nothing complex about the IHF thing, but enjoy.- sinneed (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Flow of article

• I also have objection to the way this article is being re-constructed.
• We should reasonably document it in such a way that it follows the time/dates instead of putting the carreer section at the top and then further dividing it into years and putting the critical Human Rights Violations, Khalra case, Sexual harassment conviction, IHF episodes at the very bottom.
• Information in the career section should be preserved but re-structured to miniminimize the text to not to overshadow this controversial notability's negative points. We should NOT forget that he is a CONTROVERSIAL (references are there) notability. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I share the concern about having the sections... the career section, if expanding greatly, would be the place for those. Those are part of his career. Unfortunately, the tiny section on the punjab portion of his career was entirely a copyvio and I cut it. Most of the HR stuff belongs in the article on it, but that is so bad that taking it out of here would leave it uncovered. Most certainly the career section does not need to be cut. The article is about Gill.- sinneed (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I decided to wp:be bold. Both of the other active editors objected to the section structure, from different points of view. - I have moved the initial events into the career section. I have also given the parts that don't fit into the career section "later developments" sections. These need to be SHARPLY controlled, focused on Gill, mindful of wp:BLP.
  Most of the content belongs in their articles. Ideally, (probably not practical) nothing should be here that isn't there, and most of what is there should not be here.- sinneed (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (late signature)

• Upon review, I put all the later events into a single section.- sinneed (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry for the mis-understanding. No! I did not have objections to the sections/sub-sections/sub-sub sections, I simply wanted to put them in the flow of time/years. I have re-added them but within the flow of time/years which you have constructed--99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New addition to the lead, repetitive. Cut to talk for possible inclusion.

He is known to be a controversial figure because of his role in Assam <ref>[http://ia.rediff.com/www/news/2003/apr/25assam.htm Rediff]</ref>, Punjab<ref>[http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20000521/profile.htm Indian Express, Supercop to the rescue]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Bl5tSd-1wwsC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=KPS+Gill+controversial+officer&source=bl&ots=OHApNw1J2W&sig=ATF712-FpTEWxQAKkLkmWWhcgVs&hl=en&ei=31tUSvnkM4KyswPqmfWYDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9 Democracy and counterterrorism by Robert J. Art, Louise Richardson]</ref>, Indian Hockey federation<ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/MS-Gill/quickiearticleshow/4592400.cms The Times of India, Know your ministers: MS Gill]</ref><ref>http://www.inewsindia.com/2008/04/22/hockey-controversy-sports-minister-asks-kps-gill-to-quit/</ref>, Human rights violations in Punjab<ref>[http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=47&fileid=DA6F44FD-F458-E011-053E-44D087E2F39B&lng=en IPCS Special Report Left Extremism in India]</ref> and his conviction in a sexual harassment case in India<ref name="KPSGillProfile"/> etc.

He is known to be a controversial figure because of his role in Assam , Punjab, Indian Hockey federation, Human rights violations in Punjab and his conviction in a sexual harassment case in India etc.

• Moving the controversy up to 2nd sentence since this seems important.- sinneed (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• The wp:burden is on the adding editor. Maybe an interested editor can explain ? It will certainly need a copyedit... and all those points already seem to be there, already in the lead.
  - And no, he is not notable for the butt-getting-drunk-in-88 thing. It gets attention because he is notable.
  - The Hockey nonsense is certainly notable, in a single-event way. It might even get a small footnote in the history books due to his extreme notability. But most likely it will not.
• Neither would get him a Wikipedia article if he didn't already have one. I wonder if they deserve mention at all in the lead? I think they do, but it bears consideration. Certainly they don't belong in para one, which I now think should be 2 sentences composed of what is there in the 1st now. Punjab work, Hero, Punjab HR concerns.- sinneed (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead section look much better now. Excellent work.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Double periods.

Why are the double-periods at the end of the sentences important? In English, sentences end in a single period. Please stop.- sinneed (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Conversely, sentences in English end in a period. When adding content, please add them.- sinneed (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Job

the article now looks a lot better and a lot more neutral. good job all contributing editors especially sinneed. Do we really need so many references saying that KPS founded ICM and is its president ??? I think that is a pretty well established and uncontested fact. most info in the article is not sourced from SATP anyway. 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I do not think tossing any sources at this time would be wise.
• If the article stabilizes over the next several days, maybe we get to some sort of point where we can take a couple of tags off.

- After that, maybe we can cut president down to 2, with one being the only one that will be up-to-date, and a primary source. Since I feel *confident* that will be unacceptable, I expect we will wind up with 8 or 10, with one being a primary sorce, and the only one up-to-date.

- Founder, I have no opinion, but an editor felt they were important, and feels the founder bit is so critical it belongs in the lead. I again expect to wind up with several.--- sinneed (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

this article has his height 6'4' and states he was 53 years old in 1988 ( ie was born in 1935) [4]Wikireader41 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I saw another one that gave his age on a date, I'll try to spot it.

--- sinneed (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found, it is in the "Gill to the rescue" article... he was 66 on 2000 May 21 (being VERY trusting of the 4th estate)... Which means after 21 May 1934 and before 21 May 1935. This matches the NYT date, so I think we can use it.- sinneed (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly longwinded listing that Gill is the president of ICM

Gill founded the Institute for Conflict Management (ICM) [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] and was its first[41] president. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Press reports have noted that he "runs"[6][48][49] or "heads"[50] the ICM. As of July 2009, Gill remains president.

I strongly believe this is a ridiculous amount of content, the only valuable part of which I see as:
"Gill is the president of the Institute for Conflict Management (ICM)."
with 2 references. 1 the BBC profile, 1 the company profile for its chief executive.

The wp:SELFPUB source would comply with wp:BLP as well as the less-stringent wp:RS. Company web sites are quite acceptable for UNCONTESTED content about their executives, in Wikipedia. I believe that hammering away at the wp:point that Gill controls the ICM is wp:tendentious editing. Most of us know that the president generally runs the company, and resources are available for the rest to look it up.- sinneed (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. see above Wikireader41 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. I argued against cutting, then I changed my mind. Wanted to give it its own section.- sinneed (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Edit to add "...and I apologize for arguing against, then creating a new section." - sinneed (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am OK as long as it clearly says that he setup the Institute for Conflict Management and runs it. Multiple references are the proofs.

mere word 'president' does not indicate that he 'set it up' and he 'runs' the show. There are different structures in different countries, for e.g. (in US), we have S-Corp, C-Corp, LLC etc. The person who setup one of them, he can have different designations based on its type, e.g. 'president', 'member' etc etc. So normal reader wont know untill it is clearly said that this person has 'setup' and 'runs' the organization.

Hence words "setup" and "runs" are extremely important. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Setup" won't be in the article. It is slang usage. We have that he is the founder. We have that he ran it. I will change the tense to past.- sinneed (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All India Anti-terrorist Front

This is a well known national level organization run by a Sikh Maninder Singh Bitta. the award given to Gill is notable enough for a one sentence mention. I am contemplating writing an article on MS Bitta and AIATF . plenty of references are available in RS unlike ensaaf.org Thank You.Wikireader41 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

please discuss any issues about AIATF here. perhaps a google search on Maninder Singh Bitta will help the skeptics Wikireader41 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of Gill.

I share the anon concern about the Gill quotes of opinion in the career section. If these belong in the article, please move them out of the career section. Perhaps a "Gill's political opinion" or "Gill's political commentary" section or something. Please consider whether they are needed at all. I used the editorial hatchet on a good bit of this before.- sinneed (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Gill's comments on anti-terrorist activities"... he is a widely-acknowledged expert there.- sinneed (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem moving them to another section . perhaps 'Political views" or similar Wikireader41 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

though one could argue that his comments belong in the career section as now his career is that of an author, speaker and counter-terrorism expert. these comments give invaluable insight into his persona and are all well referenced from RS. Wikireader41 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

* Not really. If it is a famous or notable remark it would belong in wikiquote. Even if it was professionally-given, it would be appropriate only in so far as the remark itself was notable... that is, something like the "Bullet for bullet" of Ribeiro.- sinneed (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

his criticism of Indian govt is definitely notable. also remarks on terrorism and tactics are notable. some of the remarks are there because I feel its better an less controversial if you just say it as the subject said it rather than trying to describe it yourself which can lead to POV issues. i am also thinking of adding a subsection on 'Tactics' used in punjab since I found several 'academic' papers addressing the police tactics in Punjab and would be of interest to readers.Wikireader41 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

subsubheadings in career

I cut "Sexual harassment conviction" and "Public Fear - Jaswant Singh Khalra's murder". Neither is appropriate. It may be we need subsubs, but they will need to be neutral or wp:BALANCED. Neither of those is acceptable, even if they were presented with "balance". I have confidence you will find little support for them.

To understand that they are not, imagine if someone put in headings like "Public Celebration - Gill a hero" and "Gill crushes terrorist scum" and "Gill saves state from babykillers". Clearly this would be no good. (and I would chop them instantly)

It may be that the butt-getting-while-drunk thing is best served by being presented outside the flow... it is only nominally career-related. Doing so overstates its imporance though, so I am dubious. It also has not been wp:BALANCED with his side of the story, and I don't care to do it. - sinneed (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also think that that this 'sexual thing' is best served by being presented outside the flow with its own section. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I support these sub-sub sections. Especially Khalra event is one of the world famous events. It definitely need its section within the flow. Sexual conviction is also distinct event for such a notability. --209.183.55.111 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - the bottom patting episode is blown out of proportion by all parties. Not that he raped someone or even pinched their bottom or kissed them . I am OK with a brief mention. IMHO it was publicity stunt or more likely somebody dared him. Khalra incident is a notable event no doubt. just that KPS' connection is flimsy at best. one witness after a decade !!!! Accusation of (being an accomplice) in murder is pretty serious and could open WP to litigation. this is a BLP and he is very much alive and kicking so we have to be very very careful how we present this. would be OK to mention it in the section on HR abuses in Punjab during his era which of course were real and are well documented ( and an integral part of his tactics)Wikireader41 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikieditor41 seems to be a big fan wp:pov of KPS Gill, one one side, he is are prodly saying that yes! he killed thousands of innocents and when one witness (a police officer) dared to speak in the court, then he does not wp:like it. I guess some editor Sinnee has already replied to him that "1" is all it takes + Court testimoney], so please STOP opposing it under one excuse or another.--135.214.150.104 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I, an editor from New Jersey, support inclusion of both of these sub sections. --135.214.150.104 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One persons testimony is just that. this is a BLP. you cant accuse anybody of murder on WP just because you don't like the person. it would help if you can show that a murder case is filed against him. yes thousands of people died in Punjab both at the hands of ISI trained Khalistanis who had forgotten who the Guru's murderers were and also the Police. HR violation definitely deserve a section in the article. good job editor from New 'Zersey' which country is that in ??? ;-)Wikireader41 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is your another strong wp:pov confession - at the hands of ISI trained Khalistanis who had forgotten who the Guru's murderers were , what guru's murder got to do with this article--135.214.154.104 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please feel free to check US political map to learn differences difference between a state and a country. Please concentrate on the contents and NOT on the editors.--135.214.154.104 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I could not find New 'Zersey' on the map. please focus on my edits rather than me. you are the one who were accuising me Wikireader41 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I also support the additon of both of these sub-sub-sections. These are more notable than his opinions and books. If 'Sexual conviction' is not part of his career then it can be given its own section as it had prior to this massive re-structuring. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take it up with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It won't go in any other way. I have great confidence you won't find much support. wp:BLP applies, this is a wp:3RR exception. I look forward to other proposals, because those 2 proposed headings won't fly..- sinneed (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Indian Government - Edit war of July 2009 - STOP NOW

His statements critical of Indian govt are notable. how many retired senior cops do this kind of thing ??? especially in a country like India.Wikireader41 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely common out there. --135.214.150.104 (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. most senior cops are busy trying to get governorship of a state rather than criticize the government. please provide some sources if you can find other DGPs statements of similar natureWikireader41 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

stiull no references from IP 135. Are we to assume you were lying above.Wikireader41 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont wait for others, help yourself or let me help you man... See here, a senior Indian police officer even went a step further and he even approached the Supreme Court of India seeking instructions on keeping the government from illegally interfering with policing and other senior police officers. Criticizing government by ex.Civil and ex. police officers is normal in India. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC) *** Personal attack redacted. Anon warned.- sinneed (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(Moving text here so that consensus could be reached to move it back to the article. Editors were challenging this text again and again. This section deal with the text, if it is notable enough or not)--144.160.130.16 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking at a seminar in Ludhiana after these attacks he said that statement of Ajmal Kasab arrested in connection with Mumbai strikes, in custody did not have much value under the international law. He also said "The biggest problem with us is our attitude. Changing home ministers for terrorist attack is no solution to tackle the menace which needs to be dealt with a policy. We always wake up when we are left wounded and the government policies are like brush and polish which dress up the incident for the time being." He also stated absence of experts while framing anti-terrorism policies was the biggest reason of terrorism having roots in India.

Moved from the top to the bottom... better to preserve the order. I am also making this a subsection under the more general one about his remarks/opinions.- sinneed (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Edit to add - I decided to just leave this discussion scattered randomly over the talk page, as I don't have strong opinion either way. Please sort this out between (or if there is more than one anon editor, among) you.- sinneed (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you is talking, so neither of you is working toward consensus, that is, you are both wp:edit warring. Stop.- sinneed (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (edit to add clarification as it appears I was not clear) - Neither of he 2 editors who reverted one another is talking.- sinneed (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read it carefully, there are three anons ( User Talk:135.214.150.104-a Paramus-New Jersey based IP, User Talk:99.51.223.161-a Plano- Texas based IP and User Talk:144.160.130.16-a San Jose- California based IP (myself), who are opposing it, see 1st anon, 2nd anon and myself And User:Wikireader41 was supporting it, see here. And all of them have entered their comments in this section. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Idly: If you read it carefully, there are IP addresses. "Anon" is slang for anonymous. There could be 1, or 10, or 1000, or 1 million people editing from those addresses. It does not matter. All those addresses could be *me*. And it does not matter: no one was talking since the last 2 reverts.- sinneed (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2 edit warriors should stop at once. "Text in question is duly preserved in the talk page, it can only be restored if opposting editors agree to it." is very much not true. However, it is true that the wp:burden is on the editor adding the content to show why the content should be added and make it acceptable to Wikipdedia. Neither of you is discussing here.

wp:BRD... Boldly make a change... change is reverted by an objecting editor... the issue is discussed. Often this process repeats.
But what you are both doing is wp:edit warring. Bold change. Revert. Restore. Revert and comment. Restore no comment. Revert no comment. Please STOP NOW, and discuss.

Anon, what, besides not having any of that content in the article, would be acceptable to you?
WR, what, besides having all that content in the article, would be acceptable to you.

If the 2 of you have no ground to meet on, then will you just edit war until the article is locked and you are both blocked?- sinneed (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this text, I had already added my comments I had already challenged wikireader41's logic with proofs that why this text doesnt need in the article. Wikireader41 did not care to reply because opposing editors did not remove this text completely. He/she now feel problem when (after recieving no replies from him/her), this text has finally been moved to this ta;lk page. He should actually appreciate anon he moved it over here instead of completely deleting it. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

one other ref of a statement does not mean that Gills statement is any less notable. India is a country of a billion people . before you say that it is commonplace for senior IPS officers to criticize Indian govt please provide at least a 1000-10000 references. just because you found one other police officer make a similar statement ONLY supports my view that it is extremely rare for senior cops to critcize Indian govt. best of luck.Wikireader41 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41 - "most of the content is added without consensus. cant rm without consensus" is also untrue. wp:BRD. Content to which there is no objection is added on a consensus of one. After that, wp:conflict resolution is neeful. Please top the edit war now.- sinneed (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried my best to co-operate with User:Wikireader41, thats why I provided what he asked in this section to editors. Initially User:Wikireader41 was asking for some source, AND SOURCE WAS PROVIDED, but he did NOT care to reply. As I suspected earlier, it did not help him. Now he has changed his demand to 10000 references. It is clearly a wp:pov pushing. I am unable to fulfill his demands which he change on routine basis. I oppose this text, he had no direct and/or indirect relationship with the incident. Notabilitiess are also humans who eat/talk on daily basis, we must add their wordings which are notable but there is no logic to add whatever they speak in routine. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Removing your focus firmly from the editors and your feelings on the subject, and placing it entirely on the content would be a good start. It makes it easier to gain consensus if you can.
• Editing anon also makes it hard to gain consensus, because an anon has no reputation.
• I fear I simply don't understand your specific argument about the bit of text your are edit warring over.

-It seems you are saying he commented on something he was not involved with.

-I would argue that everyone in the world was involved in the Mumbai attacks. The impact was global.

-A good argument can be made that his comments are relevant to the article, because 1st, he is an expert, and 2nd, it shows key things about the man, which is the point of the article.

I have no sense either way. I am very sure that edit warring is not the way to get a great article.- sinneed (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Another text - proposed addition moved here for consideration

Moved here so that editors could reach wp:consensus: He also called for early elections in the state at function organized by All India Anti-terrorist Front to honor him with 'Pride of Nation' award. Speaking at the same function Health and Family Welfare Minister Shatrughan Sinha showered praises on him and called him a 'National hero' and credited him with bringing peace to Punjab and Gujarat.

• Support - see above . AIATF is run by Maninder Singh Bitta who is an Indian politician. and the award deserves a mention. the function was organized by AIATF and Shatrughan Sinha who was a sittimng minister attended it. plenty of references in RS on MS Bitta. the guy who tried to kill him is currently awaiting execution in Delhi Wikireader41 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

* Wiki you wp:BOLDly added the content. It was wp:reverted. We now discuss... wp:BRD. Please don't just revert instead of discussing.

* If the 2 of you will pause in your mutual reversion, I have proposed a solution. I also oppose the "showered praises" sentence. The wording needs to be *substantially* moderated, or it will need wp:BALANCE which will interrupt the flow... and I don't see any need for the sentence. It adds no new content. The hero thing seems well covered. So does the fact that others consider him a criminal. Extreme language doesn't belong.- sinneed (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

* May I safely make a large edit, pulling Gill Activism/Opinion out of career into a new section, checking the language for moderation? Or are you going to revert one another some more and I should wait til you both hit 3 reverts?- sinneed (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

:)... Please go ahead. --135.214.42.68 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

* OK, I think I moved most of the opinion out of career. I will check again, but I thank everyone for allowing me several revert-free minutes.

* Next I want to pull the books out, and give them their own section, it probably doesn't fit well in the chronology.- sinneed (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

* This line was edited by an anon editor. Beware, these may not be my remarks. * I see very little notability for "All India Anti-terrorist Front". (2 press hits) - I can't support adding any of this at this time. Sorry. :( I do realize I do best using sources other people find. I just do what I can.- sinneed (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

try googling Maninder Singh Bitta who is the presidentWikireader41 (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. 2 wp:RS, on the individual, mentioning the organization.- sinneed (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Really !![5], [6], [7], [8], [9],

[10], [11], [12], [13]Wikireader41 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I refused to buy google stock and it hates me? " I do realize I do best using sources other people find. I just do what I can." - I really meant the sorry.- sinneed (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about. this google is pretty complicated stuff and took me years to figure out too. ;-)Wikireader41 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

here are a few more references in case you have any interest in writing an article on MS Bitta /AIATF

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]Wikireader41 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Him Vs 'All India Anti Terrorist Front. I oppose its addition as well.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose- 'useless', need to bring rest of his opinions/routine_talk to this talk page as well. His career/work/positive or negative acts are important to be included but NOT his daily opinions unless they are highly notable.
• Examples of notable opinions - Julio Francis Ribeiro's "Bullet for Bullet", Supreme court of India's declaring "muders of sikhs and their mass cremations by India" as "worse than genocide" etc etc.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Soapbox

I am concerned that the activism and opinion section breaks or will break wp:SOAPBOX. These opinions and such, as I understand it, should address issues relating to the subjects notability. For example, his opinions on the butt-getting, his own mixed reception in the world, accusations of HR violations in Punjab and especially in the murder of the activist.

I think you should look hard at each of these bits you have added, and ask whether they belong in an encylopdia article.- sinneed (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me expand that by saying I am no expert, that is just my understanding from reading the document and getting snarled at a few times. :)- sinneed (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the subjects notability is uncontested here and does not need any more help. a persons opinions especially ones which are notable enough to be published by secondary RS belong. It would be different if we just took statements from SATP which were not deemed notable by anybody else and put them here. we editors don't decide what is notable and what is not. the RS do by publishing them.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• "a persons opinions especially ones which are notable enough to be published by secondary RS belong" whoever told you that misled you.- sinneed (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

what makes you say so ?? Wikireader41 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• wp:SOAPBOX for one. More broadly wp:NOT in general. In thinking, though... any major public speaking figure will have a STAGGERING volume of notable speaking.- sinneed (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• wp:QUOTE for another. I finally found what I was looking for there. Please consider Wikiquote.- sinneed (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in there that quotes cannot be included. of course we should be reasonable and only include the most notable quotes. we do not certainly want a STAGGERING volume of his day to day quotes in the article. most of these are not reported in RS. I am sure he does not open his mouth once every few months only. just few of his notable quotes on notable incidents ;-)01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

as I see it we have one comment from 2002, 2003, 2006,2007, 2008 and one from 2009. hardly a STAGGERING volume. in the same 7 year period he probably made hundreds of thousands of comments most of which did NOT make it to RS. 6 comments over a 7 year period can hardly be considered unreasonable amonut to keep in this article about a person who is currently notable mainly for his opinion and commentsWikireader41 (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My remarks on this page have been fundamentally changed by an anon editor.

No one currently on this page has my permission to summarize or otherwise make representations about my opinion. I will attempt to repair the damage done over my signature.- sinneed (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

that is a very serious allegation. should we get the page semi protected Wikireader41 (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Talk pages are almost never protected. Blocking the editor is a real possibility. Your positions have been "sumarized" for you as well.- sinneed (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that. let me go on record saying that these are 'unauthorized' changes. IP based vandalism frequently leads to Talk pages being protected in my experience. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

* I defer to your greater experience. I would hate to take that step. I would very much like to see an assurance from the IP that it won't ever happen again.- sinneed (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

* I wont. I was trying to simplfyy some of the mess, but if you dont like to. I wont summarize them on this page any more. Enjoy.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

* Your attempt was not a success. This isn't a matter of wp:LIKE. This is a matter of wp:talk. wp:Wikipedia is not a democracy, we aren't voting. Even if we were wp:!voteing, it would most certainly be incorrect for anyone else to enter someone's !vote for them. We are discussing, at this point. If we get well down the road in the wp:dispute resolution process on some point or other, we may wind up with a !vote about something. So far we have resolved points with wp:BRD.

- sinneed (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall article tags - this is an area for discussion. Please join in if interested.

I have signed each chunk for easy discussion. Please do. We are not !vote-ing, no need to try to summarize... this is for open and full discussion.

I had added the BLP and refimprove tags.

• While I think the article needs more content and work, and especially needs more content in supporting articles that can't be part of the BLP, I think it has adequate sources for what is here. It clearly did not, previously. In a few spots it suffers from wp:POINT editing, and I confess I added too many sources once myself, and I apologize for that.
  If anyone disagrees, please restore the flag, but if there is no coherent explanation, I shall kill it again.--- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think we have applied the hatchet to all the BLP-breaking content.
  If anyone disagrees, please restore the flag, but if there is no coherent explanation, I shall kill it again. --- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

{{POV}} tag - July 2009

I am leaving the POV flag up, as I suspect rather strongly there will never be an article that will be balanced in the view of either his intense supporters nor fierce enemies. If someone removes, I will almost certainly restore it. --- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (edit to add) - Unless there is some reasonable explanation of why it is no longer needful.- sinneed (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Where I see the article still needs improvement

I have signed each chunk for easy discussion. Please do. We are not !vote-ing, no need to try to summarize... this is for open and full discussion.

• His actual service in the police needs more expansion, with either neutral or wp:BALANCED presentation. --- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• There is too much of his opinion. There are plenty of examples of his opinion in sources for the statements in the article. wp:SELFPUB, wp:NOT, wp:SOAPBOX... one of the reasons this is unfair is that other than cutting his remark, the other side can't really reply to his statements here in WP... wp:BLP would not allow that.--- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Is there no biography on this famous and controversial figure? We have no place of birth, birthday, no parent or family information... which makes sense, because his enemies would certainly have targeted them if they could... there is no war so brutal as a civil war.--- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• There is no wp:BALANCE on the butt-getting episode. I have read it in at least a few sources. This is not something I think is important and I am not adding it.--- sinneed (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

there are several academic papers which have studied gills tactics in Punjab in detail.[22],[23], [24] some info from these articles can be included to expand the section on his role in Punjab eg Operation Night Dominance. Since now his role is that of a counter-terrorism 'expert' and an author many of his 'opinions' on terrorism related matters are very notable and belong here.I agree that the butt patting episode has been blown out of proportion especially since no allegations of any other sexual indiscretions are available in RSWikireader41 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

* blown - Actually, I think it needs more coverage to show his side of the story. Cutting it to less than it is now (except by simply including it in the chronology which is not acceptable to at least 1 anon editor) I would not support. I don't think it deserves its own section, but on the other hand I don't think it deserved to be heard on appeal to the Supreme Court. While certainly his fame caused the event to get much more press than it otherwise would, it also got far more judicial attention for the same reason.- sinneed (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Sexual" incident was much more than noted in this incident. It was really a big thing, thats why it passed through several Indian courts and finally it went upto the level of Supreme Court of India. I have downloaded Supreme Court's complete judgement in this case, I can email it to Sinneed if he could provide me his email address. Also, it was fought up to this level only because it was being faught by a senior (female) IAS officer, . please let the truth survive ()--99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (EDIT! I redacted a wp:BLP violation. Remember that BLP violations are unacceptable anywhere in Wikipedia... talk pages, edit summaries, articles, user pages, anywhere.- sinneed (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• If it is from a wp:RS, please consider adding the source to the article, attaching it to the information it supports, then we and all of the Wikipedia reading community can read it at will. An actual Supreme Court ruling from a reliable web site (say, the government of India site) would certainly be a fantastic source.- sinneed (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is available on official web site of Supreme Court of India, I assume it is a public property so we can download it, save it, upload it, but there are challenges in linking it directly to wikipedia.
• This is how you can get it. Please go to Supreme Court of India - Judgements. Click 'Text/Phrase' in the left hand side menu which will result in extra options, and then enter KPS Gill against Enter Text, change the From Date to 01 Jan 1995 and hit Submit. It will show 2/3 judgements, and one of them will be "MRS. RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ & ANR. Vs. KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL & ANR." Clicking it further will bring the complete judgement on your screen.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you decide it supports the content in the article, you may choose to include it as a citation. You might also decide to add it as an wp:External link. Or not, as you choose.- sinneed (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I had actually asked for your help, because I could not find a way out to link the 'related judgement' to the article. Can we download the judgement from Supreme Court as a pdf file and upload onto wikipedia?--99.51.223.161 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, you actually did not. And no, we can't download and upload it. Even if we could, it would then no longer be useful for citation.- sinneed (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Further, it does appear that the site generates the text and the PDF on the fly from its database, so it won't be practical to use it as a citation in Wikipedia. I confess I can see why the court would use this method. In normal usage the costs of providing the full text of the judgements is *MUCH* less than keeping the documents available as text and PDF on a file by file basis, and quite effective. I am sure providing citations for Wikipedia was not one of their design criteria. Too bad, too. It makes great reading, and conflicts (as normally) with the press accounts.- sinneed (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking metaphorically. I think the amount of coverage on butt patting ( not butt pinching mind you) is appropriate though I do not necessarily believe it deserves a section. could include it with human rights issue as it really is a HR violation of somebodies inalienable right to avoid their rear end patted even if they have worked hard to make it look tight and very invitingWikireader41 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gills tactics in punjab

these are discussed at some length in this research study for US dept of Defence by RAND corporation.[25] where do we put this info. BTW rv ip based vandalism ( removing cited info without consensus) is exempt from 3R rule. I have sought admin intervention on this matter already. Cheers. Wikireader41 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

wp:edit warring whether with anons or named users is never acceptable. This was not vandalism, but a straight content dispute. As the note says "Vandalism must be indisputable!"- sinneed (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So, everyone is very happy with the state of the article, right?

Surely this is so, as there is no discussion of changes proposed.- sinneed (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

absolutely . under the cicumstances. would support continued protection. ;-)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes it unanimous, as no one but you and I seem to care enough to actually post. Painful though it was, I think the article is TREMENDOUSLY improved.- sinneed (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope! It is better but NOT tremendously improved. The disputes are still there, which I do not want to re-type. Editors can read this discussion page.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But no one has a change to propose, to ask an admin to make the edit? No new compromise? No new ideas? It isn't disputes we need, it is proposed resolutions. So again, no one has a single proposal? Not one?- sinneed (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the resolutions of previous discussions/disputes ?--99.51.223.161 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wherever you have them in your mind. Hopefully, you will place them here in the talk page.- sinneed (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Still hoping to hear from those who propose compromise in the article.- sinneed (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

"As of July 2009, Gill remained its president and..."
I would like to ask an admin to change this to
"As of July 2009, Gill remained president of the Institute for Conflict Management, and..."

Any concerns? No rush. I'll leave this here a few days to allow for objections or furhter ideas before putting in the request.- sinneed (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, also updated for September. Split the ICM from the IHF.- Sinneed 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

There are several dead links. Please see Wikipedia:Dead external links#Repairing and do not delete them. Instead, please mark them as dead links, or better, fix them by finding where they have moved to, or if print, point to the print source. I won't restore them again, and the edit is easily reverted. But please don't.- Sinneed 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Gill is a giant.Like all pygmies, several lobbies are out to attack him unfairly.People will remember him as a fearless and efficient Officer who finished terrorism in punjab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfindergroup (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828164401/http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/india__who_killed_the_sikhs_130052 to http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/india__who_killed_the_sikhs_130052
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003034426/http://news.sbs.com.au:80/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2002-04-03 to http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2002-04-03

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618055749/http://www.sakaaltimes.com:80/2009/06/15125851/IHF-ready-to-merge-with-Hockey.html to http://www.sakaaltimes.com/2009/06/15125851/IHF-ready-to-merge-with-Hockey.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509020832/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=90876764-7915-4961-a538-14a4fc12135f&&Headline=KPS+Gill+sacked+as+Indian+hockey+chief to http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=90876764-7915-4961-a538-14a4fc12135f&&Headline=KPS+Gill+sacked+as+Indian+hockey+chief
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828164401/http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/india__who_killed_the_sikhs_130052 to http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/india__who_killed_the_sikhs_130052
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ensaaf.org/pdf/legal/Gill-execsum.pdfp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110606063030/http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=90876764-7915-4961-a538-14a4fc12135f&&Headline=KPS+Gill+sacked+as+Indian+hockey+chief to http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=90876764-7915-4961-a538-14a4fc12135f&&Headline=KPS+Gill+sacked+as+Indian+hockey+chief
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120226092244/http://www.timesnow.tv/Newsdtls.aspx?NewsID=7753 to http://www.timesnow.tv/Newsdtls.aspx?NewsID=7753
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828164401/http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/india__who_killed_the_sikhs_130052 to http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/india__who_killed_the_sikhs_130052

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and derogatory remarks being added, admin lock required. Action required ASAP

The remarks made by some user are derogatory and communalistic which is against the policy of Wikipedia. Admin should put a editing lock ASAP. Someone is adding illegitimate content and vandalising the page. ACTION REQUIRED. Other editors also have objected to the the remarks written AnadiDoD (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Later developments in human rights

Later developments in human rights matters belongs to the Human rights in Punjab, India.most of the material is not about him .Hence removed it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017113415/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200071998?open&of=ENG-IND to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200071998?open&of=ENG-IND

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625031306/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=F072BE8A8A0506C08025690000692C86&lang=e to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=F072BE8A8A0506C08025690000692C86
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720031811/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Gill-faces-explayers-ire-for-professional-mourners-remark/284416/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Gill-faces-explayers-ire-for-professional-mourners-remark/284416/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602110710/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/K-P-S-Gill-sacked-IHF-suspended/302695/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/K-P-S-Gill-sacked-IHF-suspended/302695/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819034959/http://www.india-server.com/news/kps-gill-sacked-649.html to http://www.india-server.com/news/kps-gill-sacked-649.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)