Talk:V. K. Singh

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

please discuss on the Supreme Courts position in regards to VK Singh

(Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I take the liberty of copying here the comment made by Jeevanjoseph1974 on my talk page. I hope that this is acceptable because it better elucidates the origin of their note above.

Thank u for that & regarding VK Singh, The "refused to intervene" is not a right usage in the legal sense. If so, What was Supreme Court doing in 2 days and that too 3 long hours of proceedings. I am afraid a good newspaper like Hindu really understood the legal terminology. ref: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-chief-V-K-Singh-loses-legal-battle-govt-hails-Supreme-Court-order/articleshow/11838737.cms and it is not a times of india vs The Hindu . for any one can understand VK Singh withdrew petition in the backdrop of Supreme Court earlier rejecting a PIL favouring VK Singh and later a not so favourable legal posturing. [[Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)]]

I will try to respond to it in a few hours' time. If I do not then please, please ping me on my talk page. I also note that I have briefly mentioned this issue to Salvio giuliano, who may or may not feel it worthy of attention! - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Indian journalists too are not always particularly precise when it comes to discussing legal issues – no offense intended to Indian journalists; it is my experience that journalists everywhere often get confused when dealing with the nuances of legal jargon. The way I read the two articles, the Supreme Court treated a statement by the General's lawyers that they did not want to press the matter further, following the Attorney-General's assertion that the government had not questioned the Army Chief's integrity or bona fides, as a withdrawal of the petition. I don't think it is accurate to say that the Court refused to intervene, rather that it considered the petition withdrawn. Without access to the Court's judgement, I don't know exactly how the fact that the order did not suffer from perversity and neither was it grossly erroneous factored into the final decision, though. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Commando to become Army Chief

http://m.indiatoday.in/itwapsite/story?sid=91040&secid=114 This article claims it, can someone please verify this. I was about to put this in the article but thought of discussing it here first. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN

I have raised a couple of issues regarding this article at

WP:BLPN. The discussion, which concerns the date of birth and bribery sections, can be found here. Right now, I am just trying to keep the bribery stuff neat and tidy because I have quite a bit of experience regarding how these things tend to get out of control in India-related articles. Comments at BLPN would be welcomed. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

26th chief etc People have been playing around with the issue of whether Singh is the 24th, 26th etc CoAS but seem never to source it. A similar thing has gone on at his successor's article,
Bikram Singh (General). I realise that most Indian news sources are not reliable sources but when, for example, NDTV reports B Singh as being the 25th and Mid-day reckons him to be the 27th then we have a problem.

Sure, we could show both versions but that seems ludicrous for a simply issue of ordinality. My suggestion is that we try to find out what The Hindu says about the issue, since that is the only Indian news source that is generally agreed to be reliable. Alternatively, we look to the BBC or similar. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Mentioned it here Bikram Singh --
talk) 12:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The neutrality of this article is disputed

With the tag of {POV|date=April 2012}, the article says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2012)". I do not see any discussion on the issue. I also do not see where and whose POV is being pushed on this article. I suggest we can remove the tag on this article. Anir1uph (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have removed both tags. The problems were self-evident at the time & related to a legal issue regarding his age. This has now been resolved. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post retirement involvement in social movement of Baba Ramdev

There have been a lot of press reports, of General V.K.Singh's involvement with Baba Ramdev's social movement. The first press reports seem to be around 8th June 2012. Please see http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/vk-singh-will-join-ramdev-soon/article3507420.ece

General Singh visited Baba Ramdev during his fast in August 2012, which photographs were carried by the press? Please see http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ramdev-takes-on-congress-warns-of-march-to-parliament/article3757648.ece

General Singh seems to have been named in a police FIR, in connection with a protest march he participated with Baba Ramdev on 23 December 2102 at

2012 Delhi gang rape
. The wikipedia article explicitly mentions this fact, with a citation from a local newspaper. National newspapers also carried this news? Please see

Please see http://www.financialexpress.com/news/v-k-singh-baba-ramdev-named-in-fir-for-violence-at-jantar-mantar/1049641, and http://www.financialexpress.com/news/v-k-singh-baba-ramdev-named-in-fir-for-violence-at-jantar-mantar/1049641


Anant (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


retired Lieutenant General Tejinder Singh

In 2012, General Singh made a allegation, reported widely in the press, that retired Lieutenant General, Tejinder Singh, had offered him a bribe, of fourteen crore rupees, for procuring the Tatra truck. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/details-of-who-allegedly-offered-rs-14-crore-bribe-to-army-chief-189957?curl=1412971593 http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main52.asp?filename=Ne070412Coverstory.asp http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12769214

In September 2014, a special CBI court investigating this charge, arrested retired Lieutenant General Tejinder Singh. He was released on bail, on appeal to the High Court. http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/tejinder-singh-granted-bail-in-tatra-case-by-delhi-hc-114090501252_1.html

Perhaps some of these facts can be reflected?

Anant (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Lok Sabha Election victory margin

Singh was not having second highest victory margin, as Pritam Munde broke record of Narendra Modi in same election for 16th Lok Sabha. Pritam Munde breaks Modi's Lok Sabha record, secures highest winning margin also, Munde's daughter breaks Modi's Lok Sabha Record. So Singh was having 3rd largest victory margin. --Human3015 07:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I seem to remember that I removed that stuff once before but today, well, I sometimes get tired of arguing. The Times of India is an increasingly poor source for anything. In any event, anything can be done with statistics: margin in absolute number of votes vs. percentage margin, for example - I'm sure not all constituencies have the same number of voters. I'm not sure it is even particularly significant and would have no objection if someone simply removed it. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All constituencies do have grossly same number of voters, nearly around 15-16 lakhs. There are few exceptions like Sikkim and Andaman & Nicobar islands, as they are separate state or UT but have very less population than 15 lakh but do have one MP each in parliament. Otherwise all other constituencies have grossly same voters. We should write about it but as you were actively editing this article I told you, I was busy in other things. I will try to update about voter margin later. Thank you. --Human3015 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Talk discussions, this point has been removed from article.Adiagr (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted statements made by Vijay Singh

I am reverting this article to include the editorial change I made regarding Vijay Singh's controversial statements in India. I'm really not sure why it was deleted as it is noteworthy with respect to the subject of the article. Svabhiman (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title

Page has been moved to V. K. Singh per

WP:COMMONNAME as reported in media and all the sources. The full name is very rarely used. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:V._K._Singh&oldid=1206046096"