| Revision as of 00:47, 9 October 2006 editHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →Cancer quote: pointing out something← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:38, 27 August 2024 edit undo2409:40e0:100f:bddc:20d6:9af1:8300:3fb4 (talk) irrelevant WP's |
| (218 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
|class= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|collapsed=yes|class=C|listas=Thackeray, Bal| |
|
|priority= |
|
|
|politician-work-group=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low|politician-priority=mid|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=mid|politics=yes |maharashtra=yes|maharashtra-importance=high|mumbai=yes|mumbai-importance=high|image-needed=no|politics-importance=mid|assess-date=April 2012}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=bottom|creators=yes|world=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo=old(90d) |
|
|
| archive=Talk:Bal Thackeray/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter=1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize=900K |
|
|
| archiveheader={{aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadsleft=2 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Controversial3}} |
|
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''''Bal Thackeray''' (born ], ]) is the founder and supremo of the political party ] in ].'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this word ''supremo'' British political slang, or an official title, or something else? ] 00:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a title. A supremo is a person whose word is final and there is no discussion about it, sort of like a dictator. --] 10:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Last Name == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am very interested to know about his last name... it's clearly British in origin, but I missed any mention in the article about his background. |
|
|
|
|
|
Any info would be appreciated! |
|
|
|
|
|
:Mr. Thackeray is a member of the ] community. Thackeray is a family name in this community. No connection to William Thakeray. Rishab60 July 17, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have heard that his last name was originally spelled "Thakre" but then, for some reason, he changed the spelling to "Thackeray." (I don't know why. It seems counterintuitive, since it's a clearly British spelling and Bal "Thakre" despises the British.) Let's see if we can find a source on this information. --] 13:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Suketu Mehta in his book "Maximum City, Bambay Lost and Found" menthions that he was named after William Thackeray the auther of Vanity Fair, by his (Bal Thackeray's) father. |
|
|
|
|
|
Any relation to ], author of ''Vanity Fair''? --] 07:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Possibly, William's father and grandfather were important members of the Indian civil service and his father, Richmond, had a child by an Indian woman before marrying William's mother. Not enough to make mention of it in the article. <small><font color="#000000">]</font></small> 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Removed sentence "This would imply that he may not shave his beard until at least ] if he keeps his word.". It is speculative, subjective or biased. |
|
|
|
|
|
Does he actually refer to himself as Hitler of India or is this what his political opponents refer to him as? |
|
|
: Nah! It's just more made-up leftist crap from the hideously messed-up Indian media and part of the stereotype of equating devout Hindus with Nazis. Nonetheless, it is an accusation and I have restated it as such.] |
|
|
::That wasn't from the Indian media. It was from '']'', a well-respected magazine based in Hong Kong and published by Time, Inc., which also publishes '']''. |
|
|
--] 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Run by whom? White people and their sock puppets? Heil to you too!] 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)]] |
|
|
|
|
|
: Those who are maharashtrians will understand that it is a TRUE maharashtrian surname. I was laughing when I read the comments that it is of british origin. |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPOV == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article seems a bit biased against Thackeray. I say "a bit" because I am truly a neutral observer who knows approximately zero about Indian politics or Mr. Thackeray, but I know enough to know that language like "He is one of india's worst religious fundamentalists and fanatics ever seen." isn't neutral. (I have removed this sentence.) |
|
|
|
|
|
There were several anonymous edits between the last registered user reversion to remove POV language and the present, some of which are obviously neutral (and thus not the subject of this discussion) and some of which are possibly POV. |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone particularly object to my adding the {NPOV} template to the top of the article until the article is cleaned up a bit?—''']''' (]) 14:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cleanup == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of NPOV issues, this article does need to be cleaned up. I'm adding the {cleanup} tag to it.—''']''' (]) 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== this is a very biased version of mr bal thackrey in here == |
|
|
|
|
|
this is a very biased version of mr bal thackrey in here |
|
|
|
|
|
The Sena's workings draw ready parallels with the Nazi storm-troopers of the 1920s and 1930s - I have removed this sentence as it is a vague and unjustified accusation. (] 15:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
A very biased article.Balasaheb Thackray is a leader of 10 crore Maharashtrians and should be given respect and importance as any national leader.This article insults him.Please make it neutral. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Add my own 2 paisas. Thackeray is a bold visionary who has the courage and the werewithal to call a spade a spade, and expose and denounce grevious atrocities committed against Hindus by Christian Missionaries and Muslim terrorists that are largely unreported by the leftist Indian media. This biased article is just one of many racialist smear-campaigns by Hindu-haters and self-hating negationist Hindus as part of a deliberate attempt to delegitimize the Hindu way of life and anesthesize the world to massive ethnic cleansing against Hindus. People of goodwill who see the truth must tackle this problem now.] |
|
|
|
|
|
::First, let me say that I'm no fan of Bal Thackeray. I think that he is a fascist right-wing nutjob who brings a bad name to Hindus and Indians around the world. Nobody who calls himself the "Hitler of Mumbai" can be any good. |
|
|
|
|
|
::That being said, I have to agree that this article is pretty biased against him, particularly the "Controversy" section. I'm going to POV tag it and if editors could please work together to make it more netural, it would be helpful. --] 13:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think we've managed to NPOV the section enough. I'm going to remove the POV tag. --] 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Listen, ], I understand your point of view and all, but could you please act in the spirit of cooperation? Your remarks and name-calling ("sock puppets", "self-hating Hindus", etc.) are demeaning and not helpful. In fact, they border on out-and-out racism. |
|
|
|
|
|
This article about Bal Thackeray needs to be neutral, but that does not mean that it needs to legitimize his actions. All it has to do is not take a position on his actions. Your most recent edit ("reclaiming Ramjanmanbhoomi") is a POV edit. You inserted your point of view into the article, which is just as unacceptable as calling Thackeray's supporters "right-wing cadres" (which I removed from the article). |
|
|
|
|
|
Please work cooperatively on this. It is okay to maintain the point of view that you have. It is not okay to engage in name-calling and other such behavior. --] 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:First off, the psychological basis of self-hatred is a reality, not "out-and-out" racism. Look at the Misplaced Pages article on it if you must (article mainly pertains to Jewish people, but there are far more self-hating Hindus in the world). Secondly, notice that I called the incident both the "reclamation of the Ramjanmabhoomi" as well as the "Babri Masjid incident", providing both the Hindu POV as well as that of the terrorist jehadis making it NPOV by cancellation. You are just another delusional liberal who wants to supress all POV's but your own. It's certainly okay to maintain the point of view that YOU have. It is NOT okay to suppress the right to free speech of Hindus.Sorry, but I'm reverting. I will, however, add that the "Ranjanmabhoomi reclamation" is a Hindu point of view.] 03:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
See, the edit you made right now was different from the edit you made before. This one is an important edit because, like you said, it shows the Hindu POV. However, it does not TAKE A POSITION on it. I agree that the article was incomplete without the Hindu rationale for demolishing the Babri Masjid. Before, though, you had written that the "] was demolished and the ] 'reclaimed'." Even though you had quotes around "reclaimed," it still pushed a point of view, which is why I reverted it, not because I wanted to "suppress free speech" in any way. Right now, that section is more balanced. |
|
|
|
|
|
You keep saying that the article is unbalanced. Fair enough. How about you keep on editing it to make it more balanced in your opinion, and I'll make additional changes, and that way, bit-by-bit, we'll come to a consensus? You and I represent different points of view on this matter, but I think we can work together to make this article more neutral. Please don't just keep complaining that it's a biased article. Do something about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
One other thing. Please stop the name-calling. I don't appreciate it. You accuse me of suppressing any POV but my own, even though I have worked tirelessly to incorporate all points of view into the article. (I think my comments above speak for themselves.) You, on the other hand, have repeatedly accused those who disagree with you of being "self-hating Hindus," "terrorist jehadis," or "delusional liberals." |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with you and think Bal Thackeray gives Hinduism a bad name. I don't think Lord Ram would ever have approved of his actions. I don't think that makes me a "self-hating Hindu." I'm a very proud Hindu, in fact. I'm proud of the universality of our faith and how it preaches tolerance and understanding. I'm proud of how our doctrine of karma explains why there is suffering in the world. I'm proud of how Lord Ram eventually forgave those who had wronged him. He killed Ravan, but in the end he did forgive him. He forgave Kaikeyi and he forgave Manthra, the hunchback that caused his exile in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
How about you stop all the angry, hate-filled editing and commenting and instead work based on the spirit of cooperation? --] 13:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Fine, dandy. Don't get your underwear in knots. I'm all for representing every point of view, even the liberalist ones that I personally find repugnant and abhorrent. I'll cooperate with you in cleaning up this mess of an article if I must. The reason why I'm being so aggressive is that some Hindus should be more aggressive. It's important for people (including other Hindus) to realize that we will no longer remain soft targets for the enjoyment of the Abrahamics. Our way of life needs to be defended by force, even violent force, (verbal or physical) if necessary. Just like the Khatriyas, Rajputs and Maratha warriors like the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaja did once (remember those guys?), or the Hindu race (and yes, Hindus are more than just a religion, WE ARE A RACE) will be completely eradicated in massive pogroms as the muslims plan and connive in their little hate-spewing madrassas and qutbas even as we speak. Thackeray realises this. He embodies the spirit of Maratha gallantry and patriotism for his nation and our race and culture and you hate him for it. How else to explain this rationally without self-hatred I wonder?] 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your remarks. Could you please explain which parts of the article you specifically have issues with? Please cite the exact sentences/paragraphs that you think need to be changed and please explain why. --] 16:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have issues with the entire article. As such, it's tone is biased, derogatory, and completely unreasonable. All I want is to have the Hindu POV represented with the same respect as that of other religions. I mean, muslims blow up buildings with airplanes and decapitate journalists on television, and the wikipedia articles on Islam are full of fawning praise and subservient rubbish put there by Islamics. The wikipedia project on Judaism treats Israeli politicians with far more balance and objectivity than articles on a Hindu politicians (with similar POV's and responses to Islamic terrorism) written by HINDUS!!! What are we, blind, deaf and stupid like the Koran says about 'infidels'? What I ask that you (plural) read wikipedia articles on Ariel Sharon and George Bush and see how to write about politicians objectively, and reflect the same quality in the Thackeray article.] 23:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
There is some difference between Thackeray and some other leaders. No one else has speak about court of law with such contempt the way Thackeray does. |
|
|
Looking at the article if it has any bias its in favour of him. |
|
|
:With some justification. The Indian justice system is a sick joke. (] 05:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thackeray has never been subtle in his political views. Even Bush and Sharon have been far more controlled in their vituperations. It is only natural that this fact is reflected in the wiki article. ] might add whatever he finds positive about Thackeray and the tag can be removed |
|
|
(] 06:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hitler == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've added a specific citation of his quotes about supporting Hitler. It's quite clear that either he does or that Asia Week is lying. I personally tend to believe he actually does, because if he didn't, as some of his supporters claim, then there would have likely been slander/defamation suits filed against Asia Week and other publications, and we would have heard about that. ] 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:To use a few isolated incidents quoted out of context in order to defame and denigrate a party with a (basically) sound foundational ideology is being terribly biased in my opinion.Plus, what's the deal with emphasizing his alleged admiration for Hitler? What's with this Godwin's law crap? Hitlerian! Last time I checked, there were no concentration camps in Maharashtra. so he said that he admires Hitler. So does Arnold Schwartzenegger, governor of California and of Austrian birth. What's your point anyway? Don't make hyperbolic statements. I'm modifying the whole "I admire Hitler" stuff and relegating it to a sentence at the end of the article. To put it in the beginning of an article on balasaheb is horribly POV ] 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Again, I personally totally disagree with your support for Bal Thackeray, but I agree with your point here. The Hitler comment needs to remain on the page, but is better suited in the Controversy section. (On an unrelated matter, I don't think I've ever heard Arnie say that he admires the Fuhrer.) --] 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Apparently he did, in an old onterview . Also . So there... ] 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Last Name == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am very interested to know about his last name... it's clearly British in origin, but I missed any mention in the article about his background. |
|
|
|
|
|
Any info would be appreciated! |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have heard that his last name was originally spelled "Thakre" but then, for some reason, he changed the spelling to "Thackeray." (I don't know why. It seems counterintuitive, since it's a clearly British spelling and Bal "Thakre" despises the British.) Let's see if we can find a source on this information. --] 13:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
:Suketu Mehta in his book "Maximum City, Bambay Lost and Found" menthions that he was named after William Thackeray the auther of Vanity Fair, by his (Bal Thackeray's) father. |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-07-28T10:23:23.305772 | Indian Election Symbol Bow And Arrow.png --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 10:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
==Cancer quote== |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
:Show me the edition from India Today that cites this cancer quote. Sounds like another one of those falsifications like that done to Baruch Goldstein.] 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-03-28T07:25:52.489942 | Indian Election Symbol Bow And Arrow.png --> |
|
::Try using google before abandoning ]. the first result for the phrase is . ] 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 07:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
