Talk:Karnataka Rakshana Vedike

Some issues
It seems this article was created more with an intent to spread the "ideology" of KRV than as an honest, neutral encyclopaedic article. I tried to restore it to a factual version but apparently some people weren't too happy with that. While I appreciate the addition of new information to the article by the same user, there are some NPOV issues that I find stick out like a sore thumb. Let me list them out line-by-line as my good friend here asked me to do:


 * The aim of KRV is to protect the interests of Kannada, Kannadigas and Karnataka. - This sentence seems to propose this statement as a fact. Would be better to write this as According to the organization, its aim is to protect.. etc.?


 * Gowda is known as the "magician uniting Kannadigas" all over Karnataka and outside Karnataka - Blatant PoV/original research. Do we have any reliable, third-party sources for this statement?


 * A household name (section): This section heading needs to change. In fact, this whole section is expendable. Who says KRV became a household name after the blackening incident? Verifiability, please. Plus the whole section seems to be geared towards giving some sort of legitimacy to KRV's criminal actions (e.g. ...resorted to this (and later surrendered to the police)... makes it sound like they were forced to blacken his face and then surrendered peacefully like heroes). This section can be removed and a mention of this incident can probably be moved to a section called Activities or something similar.


 * Upholding the cause of Kannada, Kannadiga and Karnataka (section) - Completely unacceptable, non-NPoV title. Needs to be changed to Activities (as mentioned above).


 * The Vedike has constantly upheld the cause of ensuring jobs for Kannadigas in both private and public firms - Again, non-NPoV assertion. Needs to be rephrased or better, done away with completely.


 * Kannada's supremacy in Karnataka (section) - Almost all of the stuff in this section is unsupported by third-party, reliable sources except for the last line about blackening of signboards. It reads more like an attempt to propagandize KRV's stance than a dispassionate representation of facts.

Let's remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and avoid inserting unnecessary bias into articles. Thanks, Max - You were saying? 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Max - You were saying? 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Some issues
Check changes and stop making non-NPOV/Blatant PoV comments such as 'criminal actions', etc. Gowdramesh 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, please reply at the bottom as per Wikipedia etiquette. I have moved our conversation here.


 * I see that you have made a couple of changes that I had asked for in the comments section. Thank you for that. However, many concerns still remain unaddressed (e. g. the magician part or the unattested stuff in the Kannada's supremacy in Karnataka section). I look forward to you taking action on it, or explaining why it should remain as it is.


 * What is so PoV about "criminal actions"? Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Do you think the police would have arrested these activists if they were not guilty of violating the law? Fine. Since you seem to be so touchy about anything to do with this organization, read my words as "actions" instead of "criminal actions" if that makes you happy.


 * Again, I urge you to consider that we're all here to build an encylopaedia with mutual understanding and consensus, not to eulogize or spread ideologies. - Max - You were saying? 15:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: above

 * Magician - people call Gowda the 'maayakaara' in Kannada.
 * Kannada's supremacy in Karnataka - there is no end to references to newspaper articles. Details/links to be added later.
 * Daubing a person with paint is not considered criminal. Call a spade a spade, not something else a spade. If I were to call a spade a spade (and if I had had time), I'd compare your friend's actions to plotting an invasion of Karnataka.


 * Oh, people call him that? Why didn't you say so before? You've beat me! That's one heck of a reliable source you got there. People also call George W. Bush an idiot. Should I go ahead and add that to his article? Or maybe you should just read the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and weasel words.
 * If there's "no end to references", why is there a dearth of them here? Nevertheless, I will assume good faith and wait for them.
 * Hmm, you seem to be hung up on the word "criminal", eh? :-) I told you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I haven't put the word in the article, have I?
 * My friends? :D Hehe, you amuse me, Gowdramesh. If I could show you how far you were from the truth, I guarantee that you would laugh at yourself. Suffice it to say that I'm on no one's side, I'm not even remotely connected to any party under discussion and no one is my "friend". I'm only here to write an encyclopaedia in a neutral, unbiased manner without trying to push PoVs. You, however, seriously need to rethink why you're here. - Max - You were saying? 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Gowdramesh 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Neutral', ha ha! 'Not even remotely connected'! Ha ha! (wonder if there's a Wiki rule about the verifiabiliy of stuff on the discussion page!). I've seen your engineering on the Belagavi page (ah - this is touchy, ain't it?) - how you stick to Wiki policies but witholding information (paint half the picture, as it were, and claim unclaimables for your friends and their illegal 'activities'). Quoting Wikipedia policies won't last long for an alibi, dude. Wait for the references. Just have a li'l patience. Don't get too touchy. A spade is a spade, as you say.
 * And on 'adding what people say' to Wikipedia, everything is what people say - even your so-called verifiable sources are people-speak. But I'm okay with removing that line; it won't change anything. Go ahead and do it yourself and I won't undo it. And thanks for helping the KRV page.


 * My engineering? Really? :-) Support your claims with some proof, fella. I won't justify my edits on the Belgaum article to you because it would prove to be a waste of time for both of us. Plus, this talk page is not the place to discuss about a different article. You are free to assume whatever you want to assume. If you want to debate the matter further, contact me on my talk page, or if you have issues with my edits, post your grievances on the Belgaum article talk page. Just remember, as I mentioned in my earlier post, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you're here with an agenda, you're in the wrong place.
 * Quoting Wikipedia policies won't last long for an alibi? What is that supposed to mean? Wiki policies are the glue that holds this place together and saves it from complete anarchy. I wouldn't have raised the aforementioned issues had you followed Wiki policies in the first place.
 * You're welcome for the thanks. I'm glad to help, hostilities notwithstanding. Do drop me a line if you need further assistance. - Max - You were saying? 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, your engineering. I know you're too learned to do it intentionally - you probably really believe it's true. Cut the crap about me being here with an agenda etc., I'm here to add neutrality to Wikipedia which is getting a li'l too biased with your friends' activities. I can see through your facade of generous quotations of links to Wikipedia policies, so don't waste your time with that. I bring neutrality Wikipedia as a whole - with the likes of you sticking to the neutrality in letter (good job there, though!) but violating it in spirit.

Gowdramesh 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me digress a little: I get the feeling that you will revert my latest edit about the BMC resolution, but I would like it if you read why that edit should stay. I got the Wiki policy link wrong in my last edit summary, so here it is for your benefit: When should I use prose attributions?. I would like you to read through it fully before attempting any unilateral action. If you think it should be removed even after reading through the link above, please explain why on this talk page.


 * As for your other baseless allegations, I have no intention of giving them any sort of legitimacy by replying to them. You have gone on a personal rant without providing an iota of evidence and accusing me of violating neutrality in spirit (?). I can't help it if you're suffering from the George W. Bush syndrome and think that anyone who's not with you is against you.


 * Lastly, Wikipedia would not exist without its rules and regulations. I could easily get into an edit-war with you over this article, but I choose to discuss it rationally by trying to adhere to the community's guidelines. Linking to policy pages (something that you seem to scoff at) is a natural way to support the rationales of one's edits. I will continue to do so, regardless of whether you think I'm faking it because it's the right thing to do. The least you could do is read any one of the policies that I have linked to in full, so that we can have a meaningful, structured debate about this matter instead of exchanging more empty rhetoric. Thank you, Max - You were saying? 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The large Marathi population in border villages complains, they were unfairly included in Karnataka when states were reorganised on linguistic basis in 1956." - This is a statement which appears on the page Belgaum border dispute. Mr. Neutral God Max - why hasn't your royal neutral blood boiled, why hasn't the soul of the self-appointed savior of Wikipedia stirred at the mention of the original-research-ish "Population complains...unfairly included" (ah! 'people' complain?) even though you've been all over the page spewing your ideology? So much for your facade of neutrality. Now go fix it and come back here. The KRV page - as a whole brings neutrality to the Wikipedia. And yeah, I'm reverting your undoing. No policy of Wikipedia is violated by either the 'resorted' or 'illegal'. As someone pointed out, 'resorted to' refers to the fact that your friend was told not to commit the crime in very decent words earlier (ref will be added, cool it). And the resolution is illegal because Belagavi belongs to Karnataka by law and basic geography.Gowdramesh 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Learn to do a little research and get some perspective before making such bombastic accusations, Gowd. You seem to be new and you don't know any background so, for a moment, let me break my promise of not justifying your ridiculous allegations. Go take a look at the history of that article and you will see that I had completely reworded that paragraph to be neutral and consistent with the sources, but at the time, the article was a hotbed of activity with two camps outdoing each other in lunacy. My efforts were reverted by one of the partisan editors (whose belligerent attitude was remarkably like yours). I don't edit-war with people, and since there was so much hostility around, I left the article to its fate by not making any further major edits after that. The article is still in pretty bad shape, but I'm fed up with it so please, keep your unneeded advice to yourself. Don't tell me to go fix it. God knows I've tried, which is more than what one can say about you. That is all I will say about the matter.
 * Your bullheadedness regarding this article is unfortunate, but I will not pursue the matter further. Someone has said it right, "Don't wrestle with a pig. In the end, you're the one who gets dirty while the pig enjoys it". Thank you for your co-operation. - Max - You were saying? 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get irritated, Max. I've seen that you've tried to bring neutrality to the Belgaum border dispute page, and failed. Now ask yourself what is needed to neutralize Wikipedia as a whole when there are morons who drive out people like you on that page. Then you'll see the point Gowdramesh is trying to make. When Lord Krishna violated the rules of battle (Wikipedia policies) at Kurukshetra, the violation was in letter and not in spirit. While you are trying to fix Wiki policy violations on a page-by-page basis, you're letting go of neutrality in the big picture. I'm not licensing Gowd or anybody to do whatever he/she wants here, but only pointing out the big picture.Atirtha 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * when i compare with, page of other parties like this, i don't see, how this page is different from those pages. when i see above conversation, i only see hatred against the ka ra ve rather then neutral discussion. which itself biased. As i see page is with good number of sources to back up the content and should be locked for editing, if any sentences are trying to praise or from first person point of view, they can be changed with healthy discussion.


 * thanks you for good work.


 * ಶಿವಕುಮಾರ್ ನಾಯಕ್ (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KRV logo.jpg
Image:KRV logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Still no better
This article is the same propaganda stinkfest that it was months ago when I posted by first objections. Tried to clean it but apparently it has touched some nerves again amongst KRV enthusiasts. Alright, tags will have to do for now, until someone comes to their senses and decides to clean up the mess. - Max - You were saying? 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have removed some unreferenced and out-of-place statements. Hope the fans won't mind. - Max - You were saying? 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I came across this article today. Except the last paragraph, it seems to be written in NPOV way now, I think. 1 typo: bundh. Bengalooru or Bengaluru? Anyway, should be interlinked. #districts: 29 or 28? In one sentence I see 'people from all 28 districts...'. It should be either '29 districts' or like 'all 28 districts outside Bengaluru'. Sarojini Mahishi Report: there is a reference in Kannadigas page I guess; it should be referenced in this article also, in the appropriate place. In last paragraph, the sentence with 'aim of the conference was to discuss' should be modified so that it does not sound like an insider/supporter writing this: it should look like neutral reporting. BTW, how come there is no mention of Mr. Nagaraj?GDibyendu (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A.N.Krishna Rao
Comment from Rajachandra (left on the article page): It is absurd to create a nexus between the death of the much revered Late A.N.Krishna Rao who died in 1971 with the ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಕ್ಷಣಾ ವೇದಿಕೆ founded by TA Narayana Gowda who was born in 1967 ! There were many known Kannada Torch bearers like Vatal before Gowda. Where as ANK was colossus and a literary giant, Gowda is known as a rabble-rouser adopting arm twisting methods to achieve his goals. Kindly do your research and amend the article suitably.

Militant
Comment from Halli.haida

There is no evidence where you can call Karnataka Rakshana Vedike a militant organization. Don't try to push your opinion down everyones throat. Has any competant authority declared Karnataka Rakshana Vedike as a militant organization. Here competant authority means 1. Government of Karnataka 2. High court of Karnataka 3. Government of India 4. Supreme court of India 5. United Nations Organization

Show us proof where any or all of these bodies declaring Karnataka Rakshana Vedike as a militant organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halli.haida (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

POV
Article has been tagged with POV since March 2010, but there seems to be no reason provided in the Talk page as mentioned. Also, much contents have been cleaned up. So I'll remove the tag in 7 days from now. - Niri / ನಿರಿ 09:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karnataka Rakshana Vedike. 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/20120912201954/http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2225/stories/20051216007912400.htm to http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2225/stories/20051216007912400.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

We have seen people editing this article by using words like "Linguistic chauvinistic". We request not to use such terms about the organisation
We have seen people editing this article by using words like "Linguistic chauvinistic". We request not to use such terms about a profound organisation. We request wikipedia to take necessary actions against such accounts by blocking them permanently who are using wikipedia to degrade an organization like Karnataka Rakshana vedike. Wikipedia cannot be a platform to spread hatred and prejudge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaygnr1985 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)