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 been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

[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)

i find the whole page rather biased TOWARDS Thackeray. The violence and bloodshed that results due to his views(and there is a lot of that) has been largely ignored. If the violence is not what Thackeray advocates (his apology that women were beaten up in Mumbai) then he should have better control over his bunch of hooligans (they ARE hooligans). Spewing hatred is easy enough, and there is always a bunch of people who will support such hatred. But things can get out of hand easily. you can never "clean out" any place. Check history if you dont believe me. the netaji dude says that Muslims are out to finish all Hindus. You cannot generalize like that. there are Muslims who hate Hindus and there are Hindus who hate Muslims (of which you are one) but the entire community is not obssesed with hatred. The Babri Masjid incident is a shameful blot in Indian history. As for the Hitler bit, believe it or not, I was reading Mein Kampf sometime back and i was reminded strongly of Thackeray, his opinions, and his policies, so i can readily believe that he does admire Hitler. besides ENpeeOHvee is right. Thackeray or one of his followers would have sued Asia Week. Afterall, they want to close Orkut because it has communities that speak up against Thackeray and his RSS. What happened to freedom of expression?? Do we have to watch silently as uncaring leaders tear our nation apart with hatred? Logicthis 11:49, 10 July 2007 (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!

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)

Derogatory statements for any community cannot be considered civilized and Mr. Thackeray by that classification falls way below even the basic level of civilization, when he uses words like cancer for Muslims he is just showing his utmost disregard for humanity and showcasing aspects of his insane mindAsimkidwai 11:11, 4 February 2007 (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)

[edit] Thousand Thackereys

The pages of Indian history from 711 CE are drenched in the blood of millions of Hindus who were slaughtered mercilessly. There were scores of holocausts in India compared to a handful in other parts of the world. Hindus themselves negate their own history because of distorted versions written by the likes of Romilla Thapar. We need thousands of Thackereys to propagate the real truth and exhort Hindus to act in self-defence so that they do not disappear from the sub-continent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.165.151.178 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 February 2007.

[edit] Views on hitler

Why is the sentence about Jews in India watching the rise of Hindutva as being good for Zionism in the Hitler paragraph? It just contradicts itself. (Jvalant 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Presumably, it's there to provide balance, to show that Thackeray, despite his admiration of Hitler, is not an anti-Semite. However, it needs to be reworded if not removed entirely. --Hnsampat 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what the paper cited says. What is the problem? India Rising 14:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Several problems. First, as written, that sentence seems to just appear out of nowhere. It's natural to wonder what it's doing there. If we choose to keep the sentence, then it needs to be reworded so that it better explains itself. (Also, that sentence is an almost exact copy of the source, so it must be reworded to avoid copyvio.) More than that, though, the source simply represents one person's opinion. Just because one person said it doesn't make it true. Furthermore, that source is from 1987, long before Thackeray made any of his comments in admiration of Hitler. Do Indian Jews still support Thackeray in spite of this? We need several recent sources to confirm this. As written, this sentence makes a broad generalization about a large group of people. --Hnsampat 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that we were not required to engage in Original Research on Wikipedia and simply report what are the facts as reliable sources tell us? You have offerred an opinion on the research material and used that as an excuse to engage in wiki-censorship.Wikipedia policies must not be selectively interpreted to not apply to people like Thackeray (whom we all presumably don't like, I certainly don't). One research paper by notable scholars is surely worthy of inclusion unless you plan on McCarthyism. I think it is best to reword, how to go about it? India Rising 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. I question the reliability of the source in this context. The source is outdated (it's from 1987, long before any of Thackeray's comments in admiration of Hitler were made) and is the analysis of just two scholars. Just because they say that Jews in India see a possible supporter of Zionism in Thackery does not make it so. I'm not saying that they're lying; what they say is simply their opinion. Their opinion is not necessarily "fact". Now, if several prominent scholars have said that, then it makes it something more concrete. However, we can't just take the opinions expressed in one article and automatically treat them as fact.

Still, we don't need to remove the sentence entirely. However, if we choose to keep the sentence, we do need to reword it to avoid giving it undue weight. (This is what I had tried to do here, but you reverted that for some reason.)

The rules for original research mean that we are not allowed to include our own analyses in the article and must instead report on reliable published sources. However, this does not forbid us from using discretion in determining which sources are reliable and which aren't. Otherwise, anybody who said anything anywhere could be included in Wikipedia, which clearly is inappropriate.

Please assume good faith. I have done nothing to merit you accusing me of "wiki-censoring" and "McCarthyism" and it was inappropriate for you to make those remarks. --Hnsampat 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You are right. I am sorry to have hurt your feelings.I think now that your sentence is the best way to present the material so I have put it back in. I think we can agree on this. India Rising 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be deleted. The content is original research in the sense that the sentence is implying that Jews somehow see past Thackeray's admiration of Hitler, and feel he still serves their cause. This is not the argument that the source used ever made, so using it to this end is dishonest. Since the case that Baal hates Jews was never made to begin with, this retort is also unwarranted. The sentence reads as strange to the reader because its altogether irrelevant to the section, which is not about antisemitism at all, but Thackeray's admiration of a brutal dictator. MinaretDk 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is not original research because it is exactly what the paper says. The implications are drawn by some of the readers and it is not our purpose to infer others' implications, right? India Rising 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to keep the NPOV signboard in the page. I think that most of the sources come from Thackeray's opponents and do not reflect the POV of his supporters. India Rising 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure there's an ongoing difference of opinion on the neutrality of the article.MinaretDk 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a very good thing right now . India Rising 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I added one more opinion from one of Thackeray's chelis. I really don't like these people, but I think that they viewpoint needs to be shown in a neutral article and let's trust that the reader is intelligent enough to sort out the biases of the commentators, what? India Rising 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. --Hnsampat 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, I don't know how many of you have interacted with Bombay-based Jews. I certainly have. Most have last names ending with "kar" and their language of interaction and indeed their first language is Marathi, not Hebrew. They tend to support the Sena. (Jvalant 04:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Being fascinated by Hitler is not unheard off for young impressionable minds in India, but the with maturity and learning every ‘sane’ individual loathes the deeds of the sick man that Hitler was. When Thackeray says I love him (Hitler), he helps us see his immaturity, his view would be supported by Neo-Nazis and sick people around the world Asimkidwai 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Or Pakistan, for that matter. There were pickets in Islamabad praising hitler. See [2]. These people know full well what Hitler did. India Rising 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide squads

Recently, User:TomCat111 added some quotes about Thackeray calling for the formation of "suicide squads." This has led to a mini revert war between TomCat111 and several other users. I don't have a particular stance on whether these quotes should be included in the article or not, but I figured that all parties should discuss the matter here and then, based on the consensus, the quotes should be kept or removed. Specifically, if TomCat11 could please discuss the rationale for keeping the quotes and if User:Bakasuprman, User:Goldstein Orwell, and User:Hornplease could elaborate on their concerns of WP:BLP violations, WP:UNDUE, and on the suspicion that TomCat111 is the sockpuppet of a banned user, it would be most helpful. Thanks! --Hnsampat 12:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you hnsampat. These quotes are cherry picked in order to give off the impression that Thackeray is some sort of Hamas style facilitator of terrorism. It violates WP:UNDUE precisely for this reason.Baka man 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hnsampat. First of all, why are certain people bent on unethically removing (no matter how reliable, authentic, factual, and verifiable) any information that dares to show Thakaeray anything but a Pope/Saint? That is what I call cherry picking. In the interest of presenting a balanced view, every single piece of information I have contributed comes from highly reputable and verifiable sources. In fact, this information can be cross-referenced and corroborated by multiple authentic sources. It is not a WP:BLP violation, because it is a NPOV, verifiable, and it's not original research. In fact, these are words (that were reported by virtually every single mainstream Indian newspaper) of the person who is subject of this page. It is not a WP:UNDUE violation, because taking these quotes out would make this article biased. Additionally, these are not views of a minority. These are widely reported (by highly reliable sources) quotes of a person who is the subject of this article. Finally, these quotes balance the article which otherwise gives undue weight to depicting Thakaeray as a Pope/Saint. It is in the general public’s interest to learn all aspects of Thakaeray’s life and not only the cherry picked ones. -- TomCat111 10:17, 28 August 2007

My participation was limited to undoing the edits of Goldstein Orwell, a suspected sockpuppet of the banned Hkelkar.

On the issues themselves, I think that the suicide squad remarks received a lot of coverage at the time, and are mentioned every now and then in general articles on Mr. Thackeray. The article should not give undue weight to the remarks or the reaction to them (he has, after all, made so many others of similar outrageousness), but excluding them completely seems unjustified. A paragraph with a couple of references seems adequate. Hornplease 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More recent picture of Bal Thackeray is needed

A more recent picture of Bal Thackeray is needed to replace the current picture. Bal Thackeray has grown a beard now. A new picture will further the objective of accuracy. --TomCat111 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bal Thackeray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Last Name

[edit] NPOV

[edit] Cleanup

[edit] this is a very biased version of mr bal thackrey in here

[edit] Hitler

[edit] Last Name

[edit] Cancer quote

[edit] Poor shape

[edit] Thousand Thackereys

[edit] Views on hitler

[edit] Suicide squads

[edit] More recent picture of Bal Thackeray is needed

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search