Talk:Veerappan

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GuzzyG (talk | contribs) at 21:37, 29 April 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The what?

BR Hills-MM Hills-Sathyamangalam-Gundiyal? Please don't use acronyms, thanks. Adraeus 03:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

The article says he killed his infant child in July 1993 but the timeline says 1997. Which is right? Martyman 02:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps they were seperate children. Gedca 04:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'Baby' Veerappan was the name of a gang member, it does not refer to Veerappan's daughter. Baby Veerappan was called so probably because he was young and slotted to take over the leadership of the gang. Jay 14:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

my 2 cents

To clarify the following....

BR Hills-MM Hills-Sathyamangalam-Gundiyal....... BR hills - Billigiri Ranganna hills MM hills - Malai Mahadeswara hills all of these are different regions in the forest range which spans over 3 states i.e. karnataka, Tamilnadu and kerala

Veerappan being loved by the poor is a part of his survival program. In his support system were also the villagers who were the only ones that could supply veerappan and gang with all the provisions like food, sanitary supplies. As a reward they would be rewarded with money. They were also terrified by him as was very ruthless and would not hesitate to kill in case anyone leaked any information. So more than being like robinhood i think this was a by-product of the the support system.

--randomUser

Robinhood image

Why was he liked by India's poor? If anyone knows anything of this, it would be good to add it to the article. Otherwise, it looks like a great article. JesseW 20:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (See response by "randomUser" below. What "randomUser" said about Veerappan's support system should probably be added to the article. JesseW 01:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC))


Copyright violation

Dear Sirs, i am not that firm in the navigation of your contact options, so in case in not your job to deal with this kind of letters, please forward.

on your article on K.M. Veerappan you have published a photo taken from our site www.suedasien.net.

We have not give you permission to do so, since we do not hold the copyright of the photo either. To avoid legal problems, we would like to ask you cordially to remove the statement "Photo by Suedasien-Informationsnetz" from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Koose_Muniswamy_Veerappan.jpg.

If you forward this mail to the author of the excellent article on veerappan, please tell him/her, that nevertheless we would be happy if a link to our page is somewhere placed, maybe as "external link". in regard of the photo, we guess it is a somehow edited photo originally published by "Frontline", an Indian political magazine. The auther may ask the editers over there.

thank you for removing the statement.
may your baby grow!

Yours: Torsten Otto, Suedasien-Infonetz Berlin, Germany.

Accordingly, I deleted the image. Good relationship are always better than one fair use image. SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robin Hood comparison

The comparison between Robin Hood and Veerappan is a contentious one, and therefore I've put the term 'Robin Hood of India' in quotes to reflect this.

One man and his dog 13:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Bias

Someone made very biased edits to parts of this article, saying that the Indian government is corrupt, covered up the scandal, and killed a hostage to make Veerappan look bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exander (talk • contribs) 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removing WikiProject templates

Dineshkannambadi, please stop removing the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations and WikiProject Tamil civilizations templates. Furthermore these are not fake templates, but templates of actual WikiProjects. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is Veerappan related to Dravidian civilization? - KNM Talk 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is a Dravidian just like you... Wiki Raja (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking about me and making original research on me and Veerappan. Provide a reliable source for your claims, else just stop this nonsense of claiming me of a civilization of a notorious criminal. Next time you do that, you will be reported to an admin. Consider this as a warning. - KNM Talk 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this as a warning and chill out before I go to admin to report your racist attitude toward Tamils and other Dravidians! Wiki Raja (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KNM, can you explain why you removed the Tamil civilization WikiProject off of this article? Are you claiming that there is no such civilization ? Surely, I am not here then ? Watchdogb (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not take this discussion out of context. We are not here to discuss what is my civilization or your civilization.
I removed the Tamil and Dravidian cililization wikiproject templates, because it is not shown how Veerappan belongs to either or both of those civilizations. As you can see above, I have asked for reliable sources that we can refer for this discussion, but none have been provided yet. - KNM Talk 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if Veerapan is not a Tamil, then he must be a Kannadiga. Am I right, because that's what your comment implies. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Veerapan is Tamil. So when did wikipedia turn into "revert before discuss"? All that was needed to be done is ask for citation and not revert and delete the Tamil wikiproject. Thanks very Watchdogb (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The citation you have provided doesnot talk anything about "Tamil civilization" or "Dravidian civilization". "Veerappan is Tamil" does not prove anything about the civilizations. If those templates need to remain in this talk page, you will need to clearly establish the relationship between the subject of the article with the so-called civilization(s). Please do not uncomment the commented templates, while this discussion is in progress. - KNM Talk 07:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, read the actual info and purpose of the wikiproject Tamil Civilization: "We are a WikiProject, a group of registered Wikipedians, who try to improve articles related to the Tamils of Southern India and Northeastern Sri Lanka". Here we can see that this project is dedicated to improving articles related to Tamils. As such this article is in the scope. I am not here to debate about the name of the wikiproject and that is not what wikiprojects are supposed to be concerned about. The only thing that wikiprojects are concerned about is the SCOPE. As the scope of the wikiproject covers this article I will be re adding it. Last, the fact that Veerappan is a Tamil makes him part of a civilization! The Tamil Civilization. However, if your problem is the term Civilization and the use of the word to describe Tamil society is another matter. You should take that up as a separate issue. Watchdogb (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion going on here summarizes the actual problem, and hopefully that will result in the resolution. - KNM Talk 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "great"

As per records, Veerappan was a sandalwood smuggler turned killer, who has killed more than 180 people including civilians, police officials, forest department personnel and kidnapped people for ransom. Some of the edits in the article use word "great" for Veerappan, which seems inappropriate. As he used criminal ways for leading life, he may not be heroised, for neutrality. I have tried to remove some flowery language used in the article and added details of his criminal activities and all these done with maximum neutrality point of view, to put facts- and without any bias to any group of people.Rayabhari (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what it means to be as per records? is the word "records" refer to materials available in media or government records? the word great cannot be used alone for glorifying someone.when i say i made great mistake it doesn't mean i made a glorifying mistake..great can be used as in the sense its big.--Universalrahu (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veerappan&oldid=838879197"