Jump to content

Talk:Kimveer Gill

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

Untitled

[edit]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to add details about his family life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquinn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Columbine Massacre

[edit]

I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia, but I wanted to bring something to someone's attention. The article notes that there have been conflicting claims regarding whether or not Kimveer Gill listed Super Columbine Massacre as one of his favorite games. The current article states that he did not, and then lists all the games he did mention. The problem is that all three sources that are cited for these claims (footnotes 18, 19, and 20) are dead links. In addition, scanned pages that were printed from Gill's website two days after the attack show that Gill did include Super Columbine Massacre among his favorite games. These pages are posted on the website www.schoolshooters.info on the original documents page under the title "Kimveer Gill Online." These pages may also be of interest because I noticed that other comments on this page raised the question of the veracity of his last comments and the issue of no longer having access to his vampirefreaks profile and pages. DrKate38 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

Why call him a sikh everywhere. From the looks of all his pics/interests/etc, he clearly didn't care about his religion. Call him Punjabi instead. Calling him a sikh implys his religion matters, and it doesn't, it just gives Sikhs a bad name.

I agree, religion doesn't really matter. I strongly recommend that we mention his Indian ancestry instead.

I disagree. He is a minority and so it is nice to know what his origins are. He is of Sikh origin whether he likes it or not.

Origin only accounts for his ancestry and family history not what he is.
His ancestry and religion are irrelevant here. He may have been of Punjabi heritage but he was Canadian, his family may follow or his ancestry may follow/have followed Sikhism but apparently he didn't so he himself wasn't Sikh. A person can choose to convert to another religion or not adhere to any religion regardless of his/her family. According to his profile on Vampirefreaks.com, Gill was a satanist, although the wiki article claims he was atheist.

Religion has a concern for human beings but not for those who have wild thoughts.

I've removed the reference to anyone's religion. I could not find a single news article or citable source stating his religion. All that I found pointed back to this wiki article. TheDarknessVisible 07:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profile Section

[edit]

Those personality tests describing K. Gill as "Suicidially Depressed" are novelty internet personality tests with no real substance. They are not authorized by any body or institution and should be disregarded.

  • statements have been added that point out their unreliability. however, as part of a public body of evidence that investigators themselves are examining, they have their place here.

Student menacing

[edit]

I'm looking for an article talking about a student who went to school with guns, not the one who killed his director but the one in wich he pointed his gun to two other students and then in his director but he then abandonned and killed no one. Roger_Smith

Profile

[edit]

His profile is still viewable via Google Cache: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:I3pvdq9pT1MJ:vampirefreaks.com/u/fatality666+fatality666&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3 88.108.33.248 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)AF[reply]

it's still available on the site. -W guice 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that shooter was of Indian Punjabi origin. Surname Gill is common in Punjabi, especially Sikh people. Even names ending with veer (Dharamveer, Ranveer) are commom in Punjabi community. But would wait for more details to come before updating the page. Page is most probably incorrectly tagged as Srilankan. It would also be incorrect to tag a page as Srilankan (or even Punjabi) if the person was a citizen of Canada. Chirag 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he is of Indian descent. "He wrote that he is 6-foot-1, was born in Montreal and is of Indian heritage." Quote from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14818183/ APSEEK 16:44 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know how the name "Kimveer Gill" is pronounced? Indian names are not quite familiar enough to me. --Revth 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you would in English. Kim as in Kim, veer as in the word veer "She veered away from..." and Gill as in fish's gills (minus the s)

Are you sure he is indian born? I heard he was Canadian, but of indian descent.

I removed the phrase "an Indo-Canadian of Sikh origin," from the introduction. I felt that it was irrelevant and made the sentence awkward. His name and photo should convey enough of the information for those people who are inordinately fascinated with ethnicity. I fail to see any relevance at all to the religion of his ancestors.

Steve Lowther 08:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Had he been Muslim, that would have been put here. Likewise if he had been a WASP, or any of a number of other ethnicities, it would have been here. The relevance is important in understanding the individual. Yaf 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. However, out of interest I checked 22 other bios on similar individuals. All were culled from links here: School massacre. Three of twenty-two mentioned ethnicity. Two of twenty-two mentioned religious affiliation of some sort. Zero of twenty-two mentioned both ethnicity and religion. So I suppose there is some sort of precedent although it doesn't seem to be applied evenly. I'm not sure what valuable knowledge is imparted by providing information about the religious affiliations of someone's parents. I could see it if there was a link established between this and his crime, but I don't see that at all.

Steve Lowther 04:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just found this: "The parents' names suggest they are of Sikh origin, but a prominent member of the Laval Sikh community said he did not know them.

"It appears that the father, Gurinder Gill, is not very popular among the Sikh community and rarely visited Gurdwara, Sikh Temple," Devinder Singh Chahal of the Laval-based Institute for Understanding Sikhism, said."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=70ca42a5-f979-446f-a9c3-61949f44c737&k=38269

I'd say the connection is looking extremely tenuous.

Steve Lowther 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think putting the word "Sikh" in the first sentence, (considering that neither Kimveer, nor even his parents appear to be practicing Sikhs) is disingenuous. I'm removing it.

Steve Lowther 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been removed from the first paragraph (that's good) and it isn't referencing him directly (getting better) but now we have him listed in: "Category:Canadian Sikhs"?!!

I find this kind of interesting, it says: "His parents were part of the Sikh community in the Quebec area.[3]". That would seem to contradict the article I quoted above. So I check the source and it says: "Montreal's tight-knit Sikh community suggested Gill had drifted from his roots, and the values of his immigrant parents, both of whom have had health problems." Okay, that's bad journalism. Obviously the reporter didn't interview the entire community. But the bottom line is that the "source" doesn't actually back up the statement.

Unless someone can provide evidence that Kimveer or his parents were or are practicing Sikhs, I really don't think it belongs in the article.

Steve Lowther 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good on you Steve Lowther for researching how similar wiki articles have been written. your findings resolve disputes in about three sections or more of this page alone. i support this, if it comes to a vote. -- Denstat 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Denstat ! I was going to wait a while and see how things panned out. It's been five days and I don't see any objections, so I'm going to remove Kimveer Gill from the Category:Canadian Sikhs.

Steve Lowther 04:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a news article that says his funeral took place in a Gurdwara, which would seem to make the tenuous connection I was looking for:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060920.FUNERALSGILL20/TPStory/National

Steve Lowther 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, it is not pronounced Kim•Veer, more like Kim•Ver, as in VIRtual. Androo123 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cached Profile Gone?

[edit]

Cached profile mentioned above and in the article appears to be gone.. other links to it? Joe 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)AF[reply]

I removed the dead link to the profile on the main site, since the vampirefreaks.com's administrators deleted it. There are links to two mirrors though Swalot 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Do We Do This?

[edit]

Why do we give this guy his own page? I realize he was a troubled guy. I realize he's dead, so it's not like he's seeing the page. But come on! We can't glorify troubled people like this by giving them their own profile. It's not right! Think of all the sane people who have changed the world that have yet to have a profile! Kimveer was influenced by Marc Lepine, who in turn was influenced by Denis Lortie. You see, we keep glorifying these people and more unstable people become influenced by them. I don't know, I guess you need to include everything in Wikipedia. But I just figured we could put Kimveer's biography on the main article about the shooting, instead of giving him his own page. Oh well. Getting rid of articles is not going to prevent shootings anyway, so forget it. Talking to people like Kimveer and not isolating them will, however.

Cue the scapegoating, somehow it will either be the internet, video games, movies, music or the parents to blame for this. I fail to see how this entry glorifies him in any way. As distasteful as this man is and as much we would wish to forget him, we cannot white-wash or ignore history and simple fact, that is revisionism. mhunter 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under that ideal, should we not rid wikipedia of hitler's article? It's an event of note now passed, its history and thusly we're recording it. Who knows, the honest truth is it might actually do more good to record such things so that people might learn from them, rather than hide them and be suprised each and every repeat we run across. The article is here to stay. --Midusunknown 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you you can't name one person who has "changed the world that [has] yet to have a profile". Changing the world is usually an acceptable criterion under WP:BIO -W guice 01:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There are many persons that may never be listed on this website, who have done much good, or much bad, or various combinations thereof. The regulations here often make it very difficult to commence new pages, without being deleted.

Various combinations of ignorance, physical-disability, emotional-disability, cognitive-disability, old machines, broken machines, bad connections, et al, do contribute to this.

Hopiakuta 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mhunter: "But come on! We can't glorify troubled people like this by giving them their own profile."
This isn't a "profile". It's an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, committing a crime is one way to become notable, and notability is one of the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. You will find many other examples from Sirhan Sirhan to the BTK killer. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Dhartung, I am not responsible for the rant at the top of this page, it was left by an anon. I simply responded to it in the indented paragraph underneath. mhunter 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with mhunter and Dhartung, it is painful to see a killer or anyone undesirable to have his or her own article, but not talking about it or forgetting it would make an event like this to repeat. We should keep an objective mind when writing something that is very emotionally charged.--Janarius 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another, far more logical, reason for this that people seem to be forgetting: It is customary to split an article on Wikipedia into seperate pages, when it would be too much to include all of the information in one article. The background on Gill is important for understanding the event, however going in such depth on the page concerning the event would be information overload. --Rosensteel 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler got a page. He was evil. Stalin got a page, he wasn't Barney. Etc. Etc. Though not as "deadly," as one would say, as Columbine, one death is still tragic, and knowledge on the evil person who did this is important. --Adam Wang 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler and Stalin were leaders of entire nations, and although "evil", they shaped the world that we live in today. Slightly different, wouldn't you say? So the above point is rather flawed. Giving these people their own page is immortalizing them, when they should in fact be forgotten by the fog of history and only mentioned to provide complete facts. Focus on those who were killed, not the killers. This honestly sickens me to see someone like this get such a substantial article on wikipedia.--Jesse 04:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although we should never censor or change history, I believe it is inappropriate for this person to be immortalized by a whole page. We should just mention him and his history on the page about what he did. But a whole page? What if everyone who murdered one person got his own page? This website would have millions upon millions of articles.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Inclusion is not determined by whether someone deserves a "profile" for the morality of their actions; it's determined solely by whether they have done something notable, regardless of whether that thing was good or bad on moral grounds. This is not a "profile"; it's an article. Not the same thing at all. Bearcat 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a totally reasonable explanation. But look at his photo gallery! He's such a loser! I'm gonna go to Montreal and pee on his grave. What a poser.

Should this, from < http://vampirefreaks.com > , be included??:

[edit]

[full reprint of statement by jet]

Should this, from < http://vampirefreaks.com > , be included?? Thank You. Hopiakuta 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimveer_Gill&limit=500&action=history >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimveer_Gill&diff=75809876&oldid=75808588 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimveer_Gill&diff=75808588&oldid=75806296 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimveer_Gill&diff=75814433&oldid=75811341 >.

hopiakuta 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason we can't quote from it, but it should be cited using the proper format and access, especially if there isn't a permanent URL. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some dogmatic officious wikifascist has deleted much of what I've posted due to some nefarious "regulation" dogma.

Even though I had, above, referred to the disabiliy-access issues, it's gone, much of it.

You shall, no doubt, delete this, as well, because you despise anyone posting anything that you don't agree with. You despise disability-access.

If you work in retail, such as a grocery-store, you are likely one of those people who install security-gates, & other disability-access barriers, all over.

If you drive your vehicle on a street where the sidewalks are bad, if you see a wheelchair-user in the street, do you get really close, then honk your horn in my ear??

Or, do you drive past @ eighty mph? Or, I suppose, you might be in a nation w/ kmph.

Anyhow, I've found « about 1,320 for "fatality666" "" "" "". »:

< http://google.com/search?q=%22fatality666%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22%22 >.

Hopiakuta 02:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Or, do you drive past @ eighty mph?  Or, I suppose, you might be in a nation w/ kmph.
It's Km/h and I supposse, by this, that you come from a British colony or ex-colony. Maybe you get your posts erased because they are irrelevant things like above U_U :S EOZyo (мѕğ) 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By "nefarious regulation dogma" you mean copyright law? There's no reason to get so upset about someone deleting your copy-and-paste of the post in question. If you want to refer to it, you can link directly to the post: http://vampirefreaks.com/journal_comment.php?entry=2850563. I don't see how this has anything to do with disability access, at all. Remember WP:AGF, and WP:NPA and all that. --Q Canuck 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spree killers

[edit]

I added this article to the Category:Spree killers yesterday. I see that it has now been removed. I frankly see no good reason why this was done. Gill started a shooting spree with deadly consequences. Even if only one person got killed in the hail of bullets, it's still a spree killing. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. his modus operandi and intent was that of a spree killer, and there but for the grace of quick police intervention that limited his time in the building (approx 7 minutes), and gill's arrival a few minutes before a class changeover break, casualties could have been off the charts. people need to lift their noses beyond the body count. i'm reinstating the category. -- Denstat 18:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the category as his inclusion is inappropriate. The Category:Spree killers clearly states that those included are Spree Killers. When one visits the Spree Killers page to determine what the meaning of a Spree killer is, one can clearly see that a Spree killer is someone who "kills at two or more locations with almost no time break in between." Anyone can clearly see that a single murder and 19 some wounded persons is not a "spree killing" it is a murder, and not more. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal school paper. Included information should be factual based on the stated rules of the encyclopedia and should not mislead the readers into false assumptions. This person is NOT a spree killer. He is a murderer, and if there is a category for it, a "school shooting killer," not a Spree killer. His intent at the onset is immaterial. Dan Marino played every year with the INTENTION of winning a Super Bowl, but we would not include him in the "Super Bowl Champion" category because of the intent. Al Gore INTENDED to be President, but we would not include him in the "Presidents of the United States" category just on intent. John Hinkley Jr. INTENDED to kill Ronald Reagan, but failed...he is not included in the "Assasins" category, but rather in one that is more appropriate "Failed Assasins." I'm going to change the "Spree Killer" category listed here, to the spree shootings category where Gill will be in much more appropriate company (i.e. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Kip Kinkel, etc.). Batman2005 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the clarification, but no thanks for the out of line scolding, and uppercase shouting. after consulting wiki definitions for various categories of murderer, two things are clear: 1) the definition of spree killer seem based on only one source -- that of the u.s. justice department (Bureau of Justice Statistics). i found two dictionary definitions that define spree killer less narrowly in the Webster Dictionary and Bartleby/American Heritage. i'd say the definitions and categories of murderer used in this encyclopedia need work, if they're only based on one national source. 2) gill's case doesn't fit clearly into any category, as a rampage/spree-style shooter who was quickly stopped, and has only killed one person so far. his case is obviously in flux. he may be another type of monster altogether. -- Denstat 05:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"kills at two or more locations with almost no time break in between." It should be noted that he killed himself too -- thus making the kill count 2 and eligible for the Spree Killers category. I thought it said two victims not locationsGeedubber 05:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was out of line at all, I tire of people on here adding their opinions, rather than truth. Any reasonable person who looked at the definition and pages that I mentioned could clearly see that this person does not fit, like I said, even the most liberal definition. I'm actually in favor of starting a "School Shooters" category as a sub-category of the Murders category of something to that effect, but i've never started a category and i'm not sure how to go about it. Batman2005 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation

[edit]

Somebody just removed the word "motherfuckers" from the end of one of his quotations. Can anybody confirm whether it was there or not? I don't have an account on Vampire Freaks (and don't want one). Remember, WP is not censored! --Storkk 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "But he finds the vast majority to be worthless, no good, kniving, betraying, lieing, deceptive, motherfuckers" yields only one hit: Fatality666 [1]. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 15:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of last online statements

[edit]

Can anyone verify the accuracy of Kimveer's last online logs? I tried myself, but the google's cached version of his website dated back in May 2006. Curiously, yesterday I was able to see his cached profile that was dated in September 10, but that was gone when I tried to look. Well, I hope nothing is lost for authorities and for the public in the future.--Janarius 14:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify them, I put {{fact}} tags to prompt someone to find sources.TheDarknessVisible 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cached Profile

[edit]

Is gone, make an account and view profile here: http://web2.vampirefreaks.com/u/fatality666 211.28.37.241 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it says "That User Does Not Exist" now TheDarknessVisible 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith and descent

[edit]

in the Dawson College Shooting article gill's alleged religion and national descent have been removed until more facts surface that support their presence. see Talk:Dawson College Shooting. i removed the category South Asian Canadians from this article, but see that User:Alm93 has added Category:Indo-Canadians. this article on gill himself needs an accurate bio. i recommend that unless the facts are solid (practicing? lapsed? satanist? and so on), do not post them in the main article -- put them here in the discussion page, as we are collecting facts for a profile that is developing and must not exhibit bias. this will save a lot of reversions. -- Denstat 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think descent is terribly controversial. In his vampirefreaks.com he gave his descent as "Indian"; it has been reported as Indian by the media [2] [3][4][5], he has an obviously Indian name, and his physical features look Indian (though this last is of course subjective). Faith is of course a much more difficult and subjective question. His family is apparently Sikh, but I don't think it appropriate to describe him as Sikh without qualification unless there is some compelling evidence he practised that religion. --Saforrest 05:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a damn about he is being sikh or indian. He is an anti-christian atheist which means I seriously doubt he practise his sikh religion. He hates christians and cosnervatives.
getting back to the topic, what is the point of saying he "is of Sikh origin"? people originate from places and ancestors, not a religion. -- Denstat 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC
Sikhism is mainly an ethnic (Punjabi) religion. Like Zorastianism, Judaism or Druze so it is possible to be of Sikh origin. He was not a practising Sikh though, he had a religion test on the VampireFreaks.com profile and came out as a statanist. I think the header should mention his involvement in the Goth subculture VirafPatel 01:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read the article and I think that the religion issue is too prominent given that he stated in his vampire freaks profile that he was a nihlist and the motivations behind this were clearly not religious. I think the ethnic stuff should be kept for human interest reasons, but along with that the motivations behind the attack, his involvement with the goth subculture, violent games, alcoholism etc should be made more prominent in order to avoid any misunderstanding. 74.12.98.228 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thx VirafPatel, i did not know that sihkism encompassed so many particularities. there's no verified source that says how important any religion was to him. also, how can the degree of his 'involvement' with the goth subculture be determined at this time? his vampirefreaks.com profile of novelty psych self-tests and claims about himself, are what he put online, and can't be accepted as the whole truth. self-aggrandization is what blogs are for! i think caution is needed until the authorities have examined the evidence (incl. his computer) and concluded the investigation. -- Denstat 05:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does his so called "involvement" of the goth subculture have ANYTHING to do with his religious or political beliefs? It has nothing to do with his motivations anyhow. Any mention of it should be left out. Quit condemning a fashion/music subculture because of a lunatic.
I removed the paragraph that went on and on about goth. It was unsourced and not relevant. The one quote about life being like a video game and everyone needs to die happens to include the word goth and metal but I left it because it establishes some context and is widely reported and sourced here. I added another quote about hims hating everyone and needing a 1000 lines to write about everyone he hates. and I sourced it TheDarknessVisible 07:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Postal" computer game

[edit]

I suggest refering in the article to the computer game Postal or Postal² since Gill was so influenced by the game that he decided to act like the main character in the game ('The Postal Dude'). Since the game has influenced him so much (he even dressed up like him on the day of the killing) I suggest at least refering to it in a sentence or two and adding a link to it.

Jazzman 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to 70.49.62.178 for adding the requested content. --Jazzman

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED

[edit]

I removed the "VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED" text that was next to the link to the cache of Gill's vampire freaks profile. I've never seen a warning on an external link before and no reason was given why discretion is needed. If this warning is inline with current wiki-policy then feel free to add it back Geedubber 05:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting?

[edit]

When I got to this page, it had something like: "Kimveer is one scared p1ece of sh1t" or something like that. Then when I checked the history, it was full of reversions of editing/vandalism, many made by the same IP/Name. I just think that it should be protected. Yeah...Casual Karma 02:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I dont usually post here and i know im posting wrong but i dont know how to post right. the point is by giving this guy his own page your telling people that if they do the same thing they can be glorified 2. please take this down!

Thanks


No, This page won't be taken down. Just as the pages for Adolf Hitler, Eric Harris, Kip Kinkel, Jeffrey Dahmer, Stanley Williams and the HUNDREDS other pages for criminals or unfavorable people that are listed here. This is an encyclopedia of history and newsworthy events, information, people, subjects, etc. If you think that this person is being glorified, then that's your perogative, but the page will remain. Batman2005 01:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Implicating" Natural Born Killers

[edit]

The descriptive line next to the "Natural Born Killers" link (under the "see also" category) seems inaccurate, at least considering the information cited (the blog). Yes, the film is listed on his blog as one of his favourites, but it's part of a list of dozens of other films as well. I couldn't find any reference on the blog to how the film inspired him to act on his violent impulses. Referring to the film as "implicated" in the crime seems to be quite a stretch. I suggest keeping the link, but removing the editorializing comment. --Lewzr 04:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree, but i think the link ought to come out as well, as its inclusion is highly selective/biased. his blog also listed The Daily Show as one of his faves. shall we also include and speculate on how that was "implicated" in his crime? all of his media references or nothing, i say, unless specific evidence comes to light that points to something specifically over another. -- Denstat 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has changed the NBK attribution to read "This is the ninth mass killing to mention the movie" but the english is a little clunky -- mass killings don't "mention" anything. I'm going to change to "This is the ninth mass killing to be associated with the movie." This strikes me as the least biased approach, at the moment, and while I agree for the most part that the link probably shouldn't be there at all, the film does have enough of a history of being associated with violent crime that it seems worth mentioning. --Lewzr 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Religion

[edit]

It is quite clear that in Wikipedia articles, ethnicity and religion have no place in singling out specific people unless there is OVERWHELMING reason to do so. This does not mean that this information cannot be included later in their biographies.

Furthermore, I would love to hear from someone who thinks that one can be "of Sikh" origin.. I always thought that Sikhism was a religion. - Abscissa 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a 'Personal background' section, similar to the article on Sirhan Sirhan, to address personal facts such as nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc. This way, it's not over-emphasised as in the intro, but it offers a place for such info. — Sampo Torgo [talk] @ 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment about the "of origin" thing. Like any religion, it is something you come to accept yourself (or perhaps you reject it). Therefore you cannot "originate" from it. - Abscissa 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hi Abscissa, there was a comment by User:VirafPatel under Faith and Descent (above) that held a different position than yours about "of ___ origin". you could ask him/her about it on their talk page, or, why don't both of you dig up the wiki policy on religion, or come up with a source that defines how to go about it the encyclopaedic way? just a suggestion, because that would settle it for this article and any others where the same problem exists. otherwise it kind of stagnates as a NPOV issue. -- Denstat 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this, I have several friends who are of Sikh origin, but are themselves secular/non-practicing. In general, when speaking of their ethnicity or place of origin they may refer to themselves as Punjabi. While when they speak of being "Sikh" or "a Sikh" they generally are referring to their cultural identity, customs, cuisine, community, etc., and usually mean it in a non-religious context, although the two are sometimes linked. In addition, the term Punjabi and Sikh may sometimes be used synonymously when referring to the origin of a person, as of course, Sikhism originated in the Punjab, and the population there is largely Sikh. So while Gill did not identify with or practice the Sikh religion, it is very possible he would identify/be identified as Sikh in a cultural sense, not necessarily a religious one. mhunter 00:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crux of the issue here is; when writing an article about a notorious person (and particularly involving a current event) what compelling reasons are there to link them to a much larger category of people? I would suggest the following:
a) When the link is very well established.
b) When the link has pertinence to the issues being discussed.
In this case, I see neither. The crimes do not appear to be in any way religiously motivated. I've seen nothing in the news reports or anywhere (outside this article in some of its previous versions) that indicate Kimveer, or even his parents were a practicing Sikhs. The news reports indicate the contrary. So I don't know...maybe his grandparents were practicing Sikhs...Even if someone came up with some evidence of that, do we really want to put it in the article?
Steve Lowther 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. Its irrelevant. Most biographies on wiki do not mention it. This individual has been the subject of great speculation but most of that actually originates on this wiki page. External blogs argue about these points and cite this wiki page. I haven't seen any indication it is normal to report a persons alleged religion and in fact I see blogs saying he is atheist, satanist and nihilist. I saw 1 blog saying he can't be atheist because he's a goth. many many blogs say he's not a goth. You can't be all 6 things at once. And the reports quote him as hating God. That is not possibile for an atheist anymore than most people can hate Zeus. There is no reliable source that I have found which states his religion. Find his parents or his best friends being quoted. find an authorized biographer. Or even someone who really did their homework and interviews the family extensively. Even if his profile on vampirefreaks said atheist (which I can't confirm) it doesn't actually make him atheist. It mearly means thats what he said. What did he say on his myspace profile? and did he actually argue with anyone or discuss religion with a single witness?TheDarknessVisible 08:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His Attempt To Mass Murder Was A Complete Failure"?

[edit]

Who wrote that? Although it is true, in a way, it seems a little unprofessional. I think this sentence may be subtle vandalism by some smartass, but I'm not sure. Besides, even if the author wasn't being funny, it's still too POV for the article. You could argue that his attempt was NOT a COMPLETE failure, as he did murder one person. Wouldn't a "complete failure" have been if he didn't murder anyone? This sentence is either vandalism or unprofessional writing.

I fully agree. Gill was a "complete failure" as a mass murderer? I imagine that the family and friends of his one victim, Anastasia De Sousa, would beg to differ -- they most likely see his "failure" as not being "complete" enough. Calling Gill a "complete failure at mass murder" is insensitive, insulting and disrespectful to Ms. De Sousa and her loved ones and friends, even if (as I'm guessing) that was not the intention of whoever wrote that sentence.

Requesting Protection

[edit]

Listed for semi-protection due to the vandalism: here -- DanielBC 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Tout Le Monde

[edit]

According to this article, the killer was influenced by Megadeth's A Tout Le Monde, as he stated on his VampireFreaks.com blog. I have added a mention to the song's article and I think that there should be a mention here.

LGBT?

[edit]

I came to the page it has something about LGBT rights in New Zealand...What the hell is that about? 72.69.145.201 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it was just a bot malfunctioning. It's fixed now. // PoeticDecay 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profile Screencap

[edit]

Some editor found it necessary to delete the screenshot of Kimveer Gill's profile page at vampirefreaks (either because it's wasn't fair use, or because it was too big - they couldn't quite make up their mind).

The reason I uploaded the whole page, rather than just a selective excerpt was that it wasn't up to me to decide what part is relevant and what isn't. And especially in a controversial case like this there should be as little censoring done as possible. It is a bit over 1MB, but I don't see how people with slow modems should be deciding factor on whether something is newsworthy or not...

As the page had been removed from vampirefreaks pretty quickly, and all Google caches are lost by now, this screenshot seemed to be the only way to conserve the page in its completeness.

For now I've posted it on imageshack, but perhaps some of the people who run the Kimveer Gill blogs would want to copy it to their sites, so that there will be a permanent place where this can be kept. --Frescard 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music list

[edit]

He mentions Linkin Park twice as well--66.146.157.12 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted photos

[edit]

I deleted the photo gallery because all the pictures were listed at PUI and are nonfree and no one spoke up on their behalf. If anyone wants to make an argument that they are fair use, let me or another admin know and I will undelete one or more (though I may challenge the FU argument). Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unencyclopedic material

[edit]

"Likes and dislikes", citations and favorites music have no relevance in this article. I also removed the picture of his mug as it is non-notable like most of the article. In fact the very article should be deleted and the few things that are actually relevant should be put in the Dawson College shouting article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.78.134 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, the recent edit you made to Kimveer Gill has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 12:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"


Wow, that was fast. Not sure if this is some kind of automated revert bot or something but even if it is this reply might still serve a purpose in better illustrating my point for others (humans) who may agree with me. Ok I think I've explained the reasons for my edit and I do believe it was justified. Though the term "non-constructive" technically might be correct since I only DE-constructed (i.e: removed) unneeded and superfluous material.
I'm gonna re-add my edit one last time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.78.134 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll see what I can do. It's getting really ridiculous now, with stuff like lists of every single band Gill listened to and every video game he played. God dammit, I thought this was settled months ago. I guess some editors just don't pay attention. — NRen2k5(TALK), 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not quite sure now. I've gone through the article and done some pruning, but overall, I think the inclusion of all those little things really improves the article. I think it's good as long as it's kept formatted the way it is - boxed up nice and tight. It's interesting, having all this trivial stuff. I think some people like trying to "get into the killer's mind". — NRen2k5(TALK), 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coroner’s report

[edit]

I’m hearing in the news (radio CJAD) right now that the coroner’s report on Kimveer Gill has still not been released, and that the police’s account of his death does not match the wounds seen on his body at his funeral. — NRen2k5(TALK), 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec coroner Dr. Jacques Ramsay released his report on Kimveer Gill (sept 4, 2008) and held a press conference that has been widely quoted in news media. It is unclear if the full report is available to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.5.46 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail?

[edit]

I think this article goes into too much trivial detail about this guy's life. Do we really need to know his exact list of favourite bands, or his likes and dislikes? How is that information encyclopaedic? Terraxos (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember Columbine, and all the talk about how Eric and Dylan played Doom and listened to Rammstein? — NRen2k5(TALK), 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the world needs to remember that this guy hated warm beer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.73.28 (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The details, likes and dislikes, and more trivia facts about this person are really not appropriate encyclopedia content. The whole article should be rewritten in a concise fact format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.10.21 (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with Dawson College shooting?

[edit]

Should this article be merged with the shooting wiki? Steve Kazmierczak, Robert A. Hawkins, and Sulejman Talović are examples of spree killers who have had their wiki merged in with the original shooting wiki. Kimveer Gill does not seem to hold much notability to have a wiki, other than the shooting. 192.82.21.47 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine Super Massacre RPG

[edit]

I don't know why the main page insists this isn't listed as one of his favorite games on his VampireFreaks profile. I'm looking at a cached copy of the profile and it is 100% on there.

online statements too one-sided

[edit]

All of the angry ones are detailed, but what about this?

"VF Girls September 06, 2006, 04:15:am Hey vf babies, hope you're all doing o.k.

Sorry there's so many motherfuckers in the world, if i was there i'd help you out. But in the meantime, don't cut yourselves, don't cry, and definatley don't kill yourselves. You're my babies :) (hugs and teddy bears for all)

None of what you feel is your fault, it's the worlds fault. It's your parents fault, it's the churches fault, it's your classmates fault, it's your co-workers fault, it's gods fault, it's societies fault, it's those so called friends of yours (who arn't really friends at all) fault.

My heart bleeds when i here about you hurting yourself, because of what the world has done."

http://www.kimveergill.net/journal03.html

24.8.141.123 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

immaturity

[edit]

kimveer gill with his bedroom posters, posturing, silly mask (aged 25). Maybe "vampirefreaks" managed to keep him there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.76 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion - military training

[edit]

"He was deemed unsuitable for military service and agreed to leave before receiving extensive weapons training."

I'm sorry - I don't understand this. Does it mean he was deemed unsuitable and agreed to leave, and then completed "extensive weapons training" and THEN *finally* was released, or does it mean that he was released before he WOULD HAVE normally received "extensive weapons training"? I'm not too familiar with this area of history. --121.72.149.217 (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he was too stupid and immature to be a soldier 121.72.149.217 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.190.186 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

[edit]

It states in the last paragraph of the background section that "In detailed interviews with Gill's friends from the Punjabi community it was revealed that Gill was not accepted in the community because of his perceived homosexuality and feminine demeanor." In the citation given, this is not mentioned, and I also googled it and failed to find any reliable sources to justify that contention. Shall I remove it? JDiala (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one gives a fuck.

[edit]

This article is a one section of worthless drivel after another. The likes and dislikes is just a cut-n-paste of his profile that doesn't even exist anymore on some niche website. This page is a memorial not an encyclopedic article. I can't believe this bullshit made it to the front page. Jyg (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second that. This page is a homage to this fuck. Wikipediea should be ashamed to have such a worthless, slanted, non-NEUTRIL article on it's front page. What a joke it's become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.20.3 (talk • contribs)
@Jyg: If so inclined, open an wp:article for deletion ticket. Jim1138 (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subject/topic is worthy of being within Wikipedia, it's just that the page itself is garbage. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It's not that no one gives a fuck about Gill or the subject matter of his crime. It's that no one gives a fuck about the 37 bands he liked or the 62 movies he liked or the 34 video games he liked. Its unecessary for the task of educating readers appropriately. I wouldn't have said much of anything really if this hadn't made to the front page, which is itself mind-boggling. I thought such choices were vetted by hand... Jyg (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kimveer 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:

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) 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kimveer 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:

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) 15:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimveer_Gill&oldid=1249460367"