Talk:Bal Thackeray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
	This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Bal Thackeray (born January 23, 1927) is the founder and supremo of the political party Shiv Sena in India.

Is this word supremo British political slang, or an official title, or something else? Michael Hardy 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. --Hemanshu 10:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Last Name 2 NPOV 3 Cleanup 4 this is a very biased version of mr bal thackrey in here 5 Hitler 6 Last Name 7 Cancer quote 8 Poor shape

[edit] 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 Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu (CKP) 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. --Hnsampat 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 William Thackeray, author of Vanity Fair? --Chris Lawson 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. MeltBanana 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence "This would imply that he may not shave his beard until at least 2009 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.User:Subhash Bose

That wasn't from the Indian media. It was from Asiaweek, a well-respected magazine based in Hong Kong and published by Time, Inc., which also publishes Time.

--Hnsampat 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Run by whom? White people and their sock puppets? Heil to you too![[Netaji 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)]]

[Mahesh] 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.

[edit] 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?—chris.lawson (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Regardless of NPOV issues, this article does need to be cleaned up. I'm adding the {cleanup} tag to it.—chris.lawson (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. (Saurabhb 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.User:Subhash Bose

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. --Hnsampat 13:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we've managed to NPOV the section enough. I'm going to remove the POV tag. --Hnsampat 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, User:Subhash Bose, 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. --Hnsampat 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 Wikipedia 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.[[[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] 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 "Babri Masjid was demolished and the Ramjanmabhoomi '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? --Hnsampat 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?[[[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] 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. --Hnsampat 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.[[[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] 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. (Netaji 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. Netaji might add whatever he finds positive about Thackeray and the tag can be removed (Saraths 06:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 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. ENpeeOHvee 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 Netaji 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.) --Hnsampat 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he did, in an old onterview here. Also here. So there... Netaji 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Hnsampat 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.

[edit] Cancer quote

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.Hkelkar 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Try using google before abandoning WP:NPA. the first result for the phrase is [1]. Hornplease 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hornplease. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There werent any personal attacks. Try looking at WP:NPA before fantasizing about WP policy.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The user above accused another user of deliberate falsification. I thought I said WP:AGF. I suppose asking you to not lose your shirt over every comment I make is pointless? Hornplease 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we both know you spy my contribs, I spy yours, Hkelkar and BhaiSaab spy each others. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :) BhaiSaab ^talk 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just tone down the anger. And believe me, I look at the contribs for Kelkar and BhaiSaab as well every now and then. At least Holywarrior isnt around still. Hornplease 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I just realised he is. Hornplease 02:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Holywarrior is now User:Ikonoblast . Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor shape

This article is not in very good shape.While it discusses the sources from the mainstream media well enough, neutrality needs to be acheived very quickly, particularly in light of WP:BLP. Thus, I suggest that we try to bite the bullet regarding any views that we may have in support of or against Thackeray and try to represent his point of view in a neutral narrative. To that end, I think it should be acceptable to source Shiv Sena sources like saamna. In spite of their extreme partisanship, I posit that they are reliable so as to illustrate Thackeray's viewpoint and can be used as primary sources. I am posting a biography notice so that people may contribute well to this article.Hkelkar 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)