Talk:Gill clan

message: Associating people all over the world as originating from the Gill clan just because they share an old Indo-European word for a surname is nonsense.Why not say all fish originate from the Gill clan,because they have gills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.66.59 (talk • contribs) .
I've just removed possibly the most ridiculous claims I've ever read on Wikipedia: one saying that people named "Gill" in Britain and Scandinavia were probably decended from the same Indo-European tribe as the Indian Gills, and another giving Middle English and Old Norse "variants" for Gill.  I mean, wow. --Saforrest 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary heading

message: "The Scots and Irish for instance, also claim lineage from the same original Scythians that simultaneously settled in Northern India."
There is a legend about one tribe arriving in Pict land from Scythia. However, this is one tribe in the Pits and dates to pre Roman times. Can you reference the dates and times for the word "simultaneously". Also the Picts are not the Scots and Irish. It is well known that the Scots and Irish can be traced to Spain - both in ledgend and in modern genetics.
Many other claims in this article are without referance. Rincewind42 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erm... no they don't. 

message: I partially reverted an anon's drastic undiscussed reorganisation  here  (added back most of what had been added but reverted to the original structure and kept what had been removed). I feel the drastic change was unjustified as it made the situation worse. The article is a mess to be sure, but the anons change remove a substanial amount of content which although unsourced seems at least partially true (there are a number of Singh Gills which would suggest these are Sikh Gills) and added some rather confusing language and hyped up claims as well as some repetition (it stated Gill came from William or Giles twice). What do I mean by confusing and hyped up claims? For starters, it's rather silly to say the name has several possible origins, then to go on to say 'the ultimate origin' particularly when your claim is unsourced. It appears on Indian historian may agree with this view but it seems there are also other plausible origins so the situation is far from clear cut. It is of course not uncommon that surnames have multiple origins, e.g. Lee has multiple origins in both English and East Asian languages so it's IMHO a rather extraordinary claim and therefore needs correspondingly strong evidence of which none was provided. Secondly, I see no reason to single out 'firstly the name may be' when there's no reason this should be first (and you even go on to say the ultimate origin is something else). This brings me to another point, I see no reason for the Europe section to be first. The article has from the beginning  until the anon's change (I presume) been primarily about the Gills in South Asia. This is perhaps not surprising since as evidenced by the list, most people with the surname Gill are of South Asian origin. It seems therefore incredibly European centric to suddenly put the European Gills at the top, who may or may not have the same (name?) origins but are seemingly far fewer in number or prominence (probably since most of them are still Giles or William or whatever). Therefore, I feel the original order is best. It may seem somewhat odd to have the different discussions then put the list, but IMHO the list is best seperated from this anyway (and probably drasticly cut down) and it should be expanded with any notable Gills who don't have South Asian ancestory. The article still needs a lot of work, but it's in better shape then after the anon's changes IMHO P.S. We do have a Giles which would be best for anything about the surname Giles surely? Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found out the section added by the anon, the only thing that seemed of any use was a copyvio . I don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner, 'large chunk of text added by anon' is sadly so often a copyvio. Sigh... And I just found out we actually have a Gill (name) so I've moved the list there. A right mess alright Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reversal 

message: This author is not reliable and is not be used, as noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhim_Singh_Dahiya  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainiboyy (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dahiya 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --152.131.8.131 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This article has a lot of talk page discussion, even concerning DNA, yet the article has been tagged since 2012 that there are no references. Otr500 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No references